Skip to main content

Full text of "The Sayings of Jesus in the Paraenesis of James"

See other formats





Dean B, Deppe 





geboreti te Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA 





Outline of the Contents i-vii 

Chapter 1 Introduction: A History of the Problems 1-38 

Chapter 2 James' Use of Preexistent Material 39-79 

Chapter 3 An Investigation of the Sayings of Jesus in 80-257 
the Epistle of James 

Chapter 4 The Synoptic Gospels and the Epistle of James 258-293 

Chapter 5 Hypotheses Accounting for the Form of the 294-329 
Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James 

Chapter 6 Background Questions Surrounding the Epistle 330-379 
of James 

Chapter 7 Concluding Perspectives 380-401 

Appendix I Additional Parallels Between the Epistle of 402-433 
James and the Sayings of the Jesus-tradition 

Appendix n Additional Literary Parallels with the 434-469 
Episde of James 

Table of Abbreviations 470-474 

Bibliography 475-491 



Chapter i Introduction: A History of the Problems. 1-38 

1.0 The unsolved problems of the Epistle of James. 1-10 

1.1 The problems with regard to background. 1-2 

1.2 The literary relationships. 2-8 

1.3 Thefour strands of Jamesian interpretation. 9-10 

2.0 The transmission of the sayings of the Jesus-tradition in James. 10-18 

2.1 Support for a close connection. 11-13 

2.2 Opposition to any close connection. 13-16 

2.3 Suggested explanations for the similarities and divergencies 

between James and the sayings of Jesus. 16-17 

2.4 The relationship of James to Matthew and Luke. 17-18 

3.0 The history of interpretation regarding the relationship between 

James and the sayings of Jesus. 1 8-25 

3.1 The dominant oldest tradition: the source is the 

personal memory of James, the brother of Jesus. 1 9-20 

3.2 The positing of dependence upon the gospels, esp. Matthew - Bruckner. 20-21 

3.3 The church's oral transmission accounts for the similarities and differences. 21 

3.4 The proposal of a Jewish preChristian background. 21-26 

3.5 Dibelius' proposal: the genre of paraenesis explains the form of the sayings. 26-28 

3.6 Kittel's proposal: the sayings of Jesus in James are a first stage in the history of transmission 28-30 

3.7 Renewal of the thesis that James used the Gospel of Matthew - Shepherd and Gryglewicz. 30-31 

3.8 Recent support in English scholarship for James' personal memory 

explaining the form of the sayings. 31-32 

3.9 A summary of the five major positions. 34-34 

4.0 The relationship of the history of gospel criticism and the sayings of Jesus 

in the Epistle of James. 34-35 

5.0 The task ahead: a layout of this dissertation. 36-38 

Chapter 2 James' Use of Preexistent Material. 39-79 

1.0 Detecting preexistent material. 39-42 

2.0 Citations of the OT as Scripture. 42-59 

2.1 Jas.2:8=Lev. 19:18b. 43-46 


2.2 Jas. 2:ll=Ex. 20:14,13 (LXX 13,15); Dt. 5:18,17 (LXX 17,18). 

2.3 Jas. 2:23=Gen. 15:6. 

2.4 Jas. 4:5=Gen. 6:1-7 ?; Num. 11:29 ?; Ex. 20:5 ?; Pss. 41:2 or 83:3 LXX ?; 

Eldad and Modad. 

2.5 Jas. 4:6=Prov. 3:34. 



3.0 Suggested allusions to the OT. 

3.1 Jas. 1 

3.2 Jas. 3 

3.3 Jas. 5 

3.4 Jas. 5 

3.5 Jas. 5 

3.6 Jas. 5 

10b-ll=Is. 40:6b-8. 
9=Gen. 1:26. 

4=Dt. 24:15; Mai. 3:5; Is. 5:9. 
5=Jer. 12:3 LXX. 
ll=Pss. 102:8; 144:8 LXX. 
20=Prov. 10:12 








4.0 Possible use of Jewish extra-Biblical literature. 

4.1 James and Sirach 

4.2 James and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 



5.0 Conclusions. 


Chapter 3 An Investigation of the Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James. 


1 .0 The structure of the Epistle of James. 80-89 

1.1 No apparent structure. 80-81 

1.2 An intentional progression of thought. 81-83 

1.3 Organization according to a central theme. 83-84 

1.4 Organization patterned upon a previous document or preexistent group of sayings (of Jesus). 84-86 

1.5 Organization according to the type of paraenetic literature. 86-89 

2.0 The Synoptic parallels in the general paraenesis of James 1. 

2.1 Jas. l:2=Mt. 5:ll-12a;Lk. 6:22-23a. 

2.2 Jas. l:4=Mt. 5:48. 

2.3 Jas. l:5=Mt. 7:7;Lk. 11:9. 

2.4 Jas. 4:2c-3=Mt. 7:7; Lk. 11:9. 

2.5 Jas. l:6=Mt. 21:21; Mk. 11:23. 

2.6 Jas. l:19b-20=Mt. 5:22a. 

2.7 Jas. l:22-23=Mt. 7:26; Lk. 6:49a. 


3.0 The Synoptic parallels in the three extended paraenetic discourses of Jas. 2:1-3:12. 

3.1 Jas. 2 

3.2 Jas. 2 

3.3 Jas. 2 

3.4 Jas. 3: 

5=Mt. 5:3,5; Lk. 6:20b. 
8=Mt. 22:36,39-40 par. 
13=Mt. 5:7. 
12=Mt. 7:16; Lk. 6:44. 



4.0 The Synoptic parallels in the disciplinary exhortations of Jas. 3:13-4:10(12). 171-206 

4.1 Jas. 3:18=Mt. 5:9. 174-180 

4.2 Jas. 4:4=Mt. 6:24; Lk. 16:13. 180-183 

4.3 Jas. 4:9=Lk. 6:21,25b. 184-189 

4.4 Jas. 5:l=Lk. 6:24,25b. 189-194 

4.5 Jas. 4:10=Mt. 23:12; Lk. 14:11; 18:14b. 194-202 

4.6 Jas. 4:ll-12=Mt. 7:l-2a; Lk. 6:37. 202-206 

5.0 The Synoptic parallels in the prophetic denunciations of Jas. 4:13-5:6. 206-226 

(Jas. 5:1 is placed after 4:9) 

5.1 Jas. 5:2-3a=Mt. 6 19-21; Lk. 12:33-34. 207-226 

6.0 The Synoptic parallels in the general paraenesis of Jas. 5:7-20 

developed into a primitive church order. 227-257 

6.1 Jas. 5:10-lla=Mt. 5:11,12b; Lk. 6:22,23b. 229-232 

6.2 Jas. 5:12=Mt. 5:33-37. 233-257 

Chapter 4 The Synoptic Gospels and the Epistle of James. 258-293 

1.0 Shepherd's arguments for James' dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew. 259-263 

1.1 Shepherd's conclusions. 259 

1.2 Arguments against Shepherd. 259-263 

2.0 Gryglewicz's arguments for literary dependence of James upon Matthew. 263-273 

2.1 Similar verbal expressions. 263 

2.2 Similar themes and subject matter. 263-266 

2.3 Arguments against Gryglewicz. 266-273 

3.0 A systematic discussion of the relationship between James and Matthew. 273-291 

3.1 Verbal parallels with Luke. 273-275 

3.2 The presence of beatitudes. 275-277 

3.3 The use of imagery and examples. 277-280 

3.4 The concept of the law. 280-283 

3.5 Righteousness. 283-284 

3.6 Faith and works. 284-285 

3.7 Perfection. 285-287 

3.8 Wealth and poverty. 287-289 

3.9 A comparison of minor themes. 289-291 

4.0 Conclusions. 291-292 

Chapter 5 Hypotheses Accounting for the Form of the 

Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James. 294-329 

1.0 The form of the sayings of Jesus in James. 294-295 

2.0 The postulation of progressive stages in the transmission of the sayings of Jesus. 295-310 

2.1 Kittel's thesis and revision. 295-297 

2.2 Criticism of Kittel's thesis. 298-303 

2.3 Evaluating whether the sayings of Jesus were transmitted in stages. 303-304 

2.4 Evaluating a fixed, static transmission of the sayings of Jesus. 304-307 

2.5 A fluid transmission of the sayings of Jesus as evidence against Kittel's thesis. 307-310 

3.0 The postulation that the genre of paraenesis explains the form of the sayings of Jesus. 310-329 

3.1 James as an epistle. 311-314 

3.2 James as a homily. 314-315 

3.3 James as a diatribe. 315-318 

3.4 James as wisdom literature. 318-320 

3.5 James as paraenesis. 320-325 

3.6 A comparison of the sayings of Jesus in James with other paraenetic literature. 325-329 

Chapter 6 Background Questions Surrounding the Epistle of James. 330-385 

1 .0 A Sitz im Leben for the Epistle of James. 330-331 

2.0 Evidence for an authorship by James of Jerusalem in the early apostolic period. 33 1-363 

2.1 Written by a Jew. 332-334 

2.2 Written in Palestine. 334-338 

2.3 An early dating of the Epistle of James. 338-343 

2.4 Authorship by James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus. 343-363 

3.0 Evidence for authorship by an unknown James in Rome 

near the end of the apostolic period. 363-375 

3.1 Written by an unknown James. 363-367 

3.2 Written in Rome. 367-372 

3.3 A date between the Pauline epistles and 1 Clement. 372-375 

4.0 Conclusions. 375-379 

Chapter 7 Concluding Perspectives. 380-401 

1.0 The relationship of the Epistle of James to the Synoptic tradition. 380-396 

1.1 Categorization of the parallels. 380-383 

1.2 Summary of conclusions. 383-386 

1.3 The exhortations which derive from the themes of Jesus' preaching. 386-388 

1.4 The relationship to preSynoptic collections of the sayings of Jesus. 388-391 

1.5 The different use of the sayings of Jesus within the genres of paraenesis and gospel. 391-396 


2.0 The implications for the importance of genre in the interpretation of scripture. 396-401 

2.1 The genre of paraenesis explains the form of the Sayings of Jesus. 396-397 

2.2 The genre of paraenesis explains the omission of Christology in the Epistle of James. 397-401 

Appendix I Additional Parallels Between the Epistle of James and the Sayings of Jesus. 402-433 

1.0 Parallels between James and the Synoptic gospels 

suggested by authors of the last two centuries. 402-410 

2.0 The lack of consensus. 410-41 1 

3.0 The minor parallels: those quoted at least ten times (one-sixth of the commentators). 41 1-423 

3.1 Jas. l:17=Mt. 7:11; Lk. 11:13. 411-413 

3.2 Jas. 4:4a=Mt. 12:39a; 16:4a; Mk. 8:38. 413-415 

3.3 Jas.4:12=Mt. 10:28. 416-417 

3.4 Jas. 4:13-14=Mt. 6:34; Lk. 12:16-21. 417-418 

3.5 Jas. 4:17=Lk. 12:47. 418-419 

3.6 Jas. 5:6=Lk. 6:37; Mt. 12:7,37. 419-420 

3.7 Jas. 5:9b=Mt. 24:33b; Mk. 13:29b. 420-421 

3.8 Jas. 5:17=Lk. 4:25. 422-423 

4.0 The minor parallels: those quoted at least six times (one-tenth of the commentators). 423-430 

4.1 Jas. l:12=Mt. 5:ll-12a; Lk. 6:22-23a. 423-424 

4.2 Jas. l:12=Mt. 10:22. 424 

4.3 Jas. l:21=Mt. 13:19-23; Lk. 8:11-15. 424-425 

4.4 Jas. 2:8=Mt. 7:12; Lk. 6:31. 425 

4.5 Jas. 2:10=Mt. 5:19. 426 

4.6 Jas. 2: 14=Mt. 7:21 ; Lk. 6:46. 426-427 

4.7 Jas. 2: 15=Mt. 25:36,41. 427-428 

4.8 Jas. 4:8=Mt. 5:8. 428 

4.9 Jas. 4:10=Mt. 5:3,5. 428-429 

4.10 Jas. 5:7-8=Mt. 24:3,27,37,39. 429 

4.11 Jas. 5:9a=Mt. 7:1. 429-430 
4.12Jas. 5:14=Mk. 6:13. 430 

5.0 A categorization of the parallels. 430-431 

6.0 Notes on the history of the listing of parallels. 43 1-433 

Appendix II Additional Literary Parallels with the Epistle of James. 434-354 

1.0 The categories. 434 

2.0 Parallels between James and 1 Peter. 434-440 


2.1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 434-437 

2.2 A categorization of the parallels. 437-438 

2.3 Conclusions. 438-440 

3.0 Parallels between James and Paul's early epistles. 440-447 

3.1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 440-443 

3.2 A categorization of the parallels. 443 

3.3 Conclusions. 443-447 

4.0 Parallels between James and Paul's later epistles. 447-448 

4.1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 447-448 

4.2 A categorization of the parallels. 448 

4.3 Conclusions. 448 

5.0 Parallels between James and Hebrews. 449-451 

5.1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 449 

5.2 A categorization of the parallels. 449-450 

5.3 Conclusions. 450-451 

6.0 Parallels between James and Revelation. 451-452 

6. 1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 

6.2 A categorization of the parallels. 

6.3 Conclusions. 

7.0 Parallels between James and 1 Clement. 452-457 

7.1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 452-453 

7.2 A categorization of the parallels. 453-454 

7.3 Conclusions. 454-457 

8.0 Parallels between James and the Shepherd of HeiTnas. 457-468 

8.1 The parallel expressions in their Greek form. 457-461 

8.2 A categorization of the parallels. 461-462 

8.3 Conclusions. 462-468 

9.0 General conclusions concerning all the parallels. 468-469 

Chapter 1 
Introduction: A History of the Problems 

1.1 The Problems With Regard to Background 

Probably the most concise description of the history of 
interpretation of the Epistle of James in the modern era is the 
title of Meyer's book, Das_.Ratsel_des___Ja^co^^ The book 

of James has become an enigma. Toxopeus laments, "Few letters of 
the New Testament have provoked such diverse interpretations over 
the years as the Epistle of James. "2 Decisive questions over the 
authorship, date, readers, provenance, genre, and canonicity of 
this writing lie like an unsolved puzzle in the hands of the 
exegete. Almost every James mentioned in the NT has been posited 
at one time or another as the author of this epistle. Some 
interpreters jump back and forth swayed in divergent directions 
by the ambiguous quality of the literature, 3 while others finally 
choose the solution of a pseudonymous document.'^ The possible 
date of origin has ranged all the way from the early years of 

■'• Arnold Meyer, Das Ratsel de s Ja cobusbrief es , title 
page . 

^Hendrlk J, Toxopeus, Karakter en Herkomst van den 

^Friedrich H. Kern argued for pseudonymlty in his 1835 
article, "Der Charakter und Ursprung des Briefs Jakobi," TZTh , 
zweites Heft, 1-132, but changed his position in his 1838 com- 
mentary, Der Brief Jakobi . 

"^A typical example is Martin Dlbelius and Helnrlch 
Greeven, Jamesj A Commentary on the Ep^istle of James, 18ff. 

Christ's life to the latter half of the second century,-' With 
regard to audience Jlllicher and von Soden^ contend that not a 
word in the entire letter points to Jewish readers, while Spitta''^ 
attempts to prove that every word can be better applied to a 
Jewish audience. Furthermore, there has been a long-standing 
argument whether James is an epistle, a homily, a series of 
diatribes, wisdom literature, or paraenesis.^ Finally, even the 
certainty of James' canonicity has remained an unfinished argu- 
ment,?' Luther's designation of James as "an epistle of straw"^^ 
as compared with the pure gold of the gospel found in John, 
Romans, Geilatians, and 1 Peter still haunts interpreters today, 
1.2 The Literary Relationships 

Where do v.?e find the leading clues to this unsolved 
riddle? What method of investigation can uncover the design and 
pinpoint the interconnected pieces of the Jamesian puzzle? The 
key, as testified by many scholars, ^ J- will only be discovered 

^Toxopeus, Jacobusbrief , contains thorough lists of the 
19th century writers: pp. 2-3 prePauline date, 40-41 end of the 
apostolic period, 59-61 second century date. 

■^^ A d o 1 f J u 1 i c h e r , E.i n 1 e 1 1 u.n^ _i n d_a s_ Jie ue ^ ^T e s_t am e n_t , 188; 

Hermann von S o d e n , §eiibxi,§£-i.,-,J.O„§Jl--l.®^^^^ 
Judas, 171. 

•'Friedrich Spitta, "Der Brief des Jakobus , " Zuii_.G_es- 

£ki^c h t§_J-irt?l,., -li ii.§.£3:,tli,I„„d 6 ^^ ' H- 155-183. 

^Cf. ch , 6, sections 3.1-3.5 for the various proponents 
of these views. 

^Cf. ch . 6, section 2.4e, 

l^See Willibald Beyschlag, Der_Brief__des^^ 2 2 for 

the primary references in Luther and Fiis grounds "for such a con- 

■^^h .E , Blora, De b ri ef _y § n_ J a_c oJd u s , 13 3-216 dedicates two 
of his five chapters to the question of literary relationships; 
Toxopeus , J§£ o bil§blLi„fJ. ' 133-243, one of four chapters; Paul 
F e i n e , D e_r_ J ak o bu_s bx.iej__jn_a c ii__^L e^^^^ - 

ll§,iJi]-i?. se n ' 100-13' 8, one of five chapters; Spitta, Z u.r _G e s c h _i^^^^ 
li: 155-236, one of three chapters. 

when one investigates the relationship of the Epistle of James to 
other literature, both Christian and Jewish. Shepherd, for 
instance, states, "Since the Epistle does not appear designed to 
meet a specific crisis or situation in the life of the Church, 
any determination of its date and place of origin must depend 
upon whatever evidence can be draiArn from its literary relation- 
ships with other Jewish and Christian documents . "1 2 

Prominent attention has been given to Peter's first 
epistle where surprisingly close parallels in wording, content, 
common quotations from the OT , and order of material have been 
iscerned , 1-3 The following list by Carrington-^'^ is representa- 


tive : 


1 : 1 


1 : 3 








General Description 

the diaspora 
v a r i o us t e mp t a t i o n s 

testing of faith 
:reference to Is. 40:6 
receiving the crown 
begotten by a word 
salvation and putting off 
s p 1 r 1 1: u a 1 w o r s h i p 
honest "walking" 
lusts producing war 
4:6 reference to Prov, 3:34 5:5b 



: 1 


: 6 


- 1 


: 2 4 


: 4 


: 23 

^ , 

: 2 

4. '- 

; 5 


: 12 

: 11 

-'■^MasseY H, Shepherd, "The Epistle of James and the 
Gospel of Matthew," JBL 75(1956): 40. 

-'■■^Extended discussions can be found in Blom, Jaco_bus , 
208-243; Arthur T, Cadoux , "The First Epistle of St. Peter ,''''^'' The 

31hoy„SilL„9,l._it„-. ■?3E§§..' 39-43; Peine, Jakpbu^brief . 125-131; Meyer, 

Ratsei, 72-82; Adolf Schlatter, §sv_JBrief__d^^^ , 67-73; 

Edward G, Selwyn, %h.?._MilL.^S^-3R^^%A.^^^9A...3S^L—R^X^-£.' 365-466, esp . 
462ff; Spitta, "Der erste Petrusbrief , " Zjar__G eschi chjt e , II: 183- 
202; Ernst Vowinkel, Die,..§jruS,4g_edj^^ 

,SAij?:ll§XLJ!yj?..„^?.,tL__§J.§Jl£Q_l.ri ' Albert 

Wifstrand, "Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James and 
Peter," S„Th 1(1948): 170- 182'. 

-'■'^Philip Car ring ton, The_„Pr Jjb it i^^^ , 

28, See Appendix II, section 2.1 for a chart of the similarities 
of wordina in the oriainal lanauaae. 


4 ; 7a submit to authority 5:5a 

4:7b resist the devil 5:9 

4:10 be ruimbled 5:6 

Yet what seems at first sight to be a promising method 
yields in the end only contradictory results. While many distin- 
guished scholars concl'adei that Peter utilized the Epistle of 
James, 15 gj^ equal number argu.e that James employed the contents 
of 1 Peter in the coinposition process. 16 j^ third position posits 
the presence of a primitive Christian catechism which both James 
and Peter enlisted to serve their individual purposes, Carring- 
ton explains, 

1 Peter is nearer in general outline to James than to any 
Pauline writing, yet differences in vocabulary and general 
theme are so great as to preclude the explanation that one 
borrowed froiB the other. Both exhibit a succession of 
thought and terminology which is best thought of as prior to 
either . -^ * 

Carrington develops the thesis that the common backciround is a 

primitive Christian catechism containing at least four sections 

based on common expressions in NT literature; 

-^^For instsince, Blom, Cadoux , Mayor, Meyer. Rendall, 
Schlatter, Sidebottom, Spitta, and Zahn, The usual arguments for 
James' earlier dating include: 1) In quotes from the OT Peter's 
wording is more exact, indicating a correcting tendency; 2) It is 
easier to envision a transformation whereby Jesus is substituted 
for the OT prophets as a model of a believer's attitude toward 
suffering than the reverse process; 3) James has a less developed 
Christology; 4) In 1 Peter separation between Christians and Jews 
has become final (2;8), whereas in James Christians still meet in 
the synagogue (2:2); 5) The common thought finds fuller express- 
ion in 1 Peter. 

l^Briickner , Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Moffatt, von Soden, B. 
Weiss etc. Similarities with the Apostolic Fathers (esp, 1 Cle- 
ment and the Shepherd of Hermas) cause them to place 1 Peter 
chronologically prior to James. Of. T.E.S. Ferris. "The Epistle 
of James in Relation to 1 Peter," CgjR 129(1939}: 303-308 for an 
elaborately worked-out proposal on how James supposedly used 
Peter's epistle. 

^"^Carrington, C a t e c ^ i^s ^ , 2 2. 

1) Deponentes igitur omne malum Putting off all evil 

2) Subiecti estote Submit yourselves 

3) Vigilante (et orate) P^Jatch and pray 

4) Resistito diabolo Resist the devil 

Not only .James and 1 Peter fit this pattern but the later Pauline 
writings of Colossians and Ephesians as well. 18 ^ fourth solution 
typified by Dibelius insists that literary dependence is un- 
founded since the kinship of style found among paraenetic writ- 
ings is the basis of every parallel, 19 Lohse has adopted 
Dibelius' conclusion and applied it to other primitive docu- 
ments. 20 Therefore, since an investigation into the relationship 
between James and 1 Peter has not resulted in the expected con- 
sensus of opinion, we need to look elsewhere to locate the key to 
the enigma of James. 

A comparison between the writings of Paul and James has 
also received much attention. The themes of justification and 
faith/woi'ks have been carefully studied21 and a lona series of 

^■^Inspired by Carrington's suggestion.s , Selwyn, "Essay 
H'" ,llii;s_t .P?..t-S r ' 363-466 drew up a more detailed outline of con- 
tents comprising two baptismal catechisms and a persecution 
source . 

^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 30, n. 101, 

^^Eduard Lohse , "Glaube una Werke : Zur Theologie des 
Jakobusbr i e f e s , " ZNW 48(1957): 14-15. 

2lFeine, Jakobusbr- ie f , 100-122; Henry P. Hamaan, "Faith 

and Works in Paul and James T'' .LThJ9 {,1975 ) : 33-41; Martin Hengel, 

"Der Jakobusbrlef als ant ipaulinische Polemik." Tjraditj..on and 
Iilt§£Pi§..t,.§^t,iSil iJ2 -til.§ liS.^ ,Tes t.ajnen_t ; 248-273; Joachim Jereraias, 
"Paul and James," ET 66(1955[: 368-371; Charles Johnson, "The 
Controversy between St. Paul and St. James," CQ 3(1915): 603-619; 
Ulrich Luck, "Der Jakobusbrlef und die Theologie des Paulus , " ThG 
61(1971): 161-17 9; Lohse, "Glaube und Werke," 1-22; Walter 
Schmithals, Paulus und Jakobus. 


possible parallels in wording and content has been enumerated . 22 



: 2-4 




: 13 


: 15 




: 21 































4 : 






General Description 

beneficial results of suffering 
not waveer through unbelief 
God and teffiptations 
sin brings death 
first fruits 
put aside evil 
hearing the law is not enough 
deceived religion 
conduct toward outsiders 
the poor are rich in faith 

bringing to court 
loving neighbor as oneself 

keeping the whole law 
breaking the commandments 

one God and demons 
Abraham and righteousness 
justification and works 
worldly and spiritual wisdom 
jealousy and disorder 
the inner battle 
enemies of God 
the spirit within us 
against judg'iiig 
if it is the Lord's will 


Rom . 5 : 3-5 

Rom , 4:20 

1 Cor. 10:13 

Rom. 5:12; 6:23 

Rom . 8:23 

Rom . 13:12 

Rom. 2:13 
1 Cor, 3:18; Gal. 6:3 
1 Cor. 14: 23 ; Rom. 14 : 1 

1 Cor. 1:27-28 

1 Cor . 6:2,4 
Rom. 13:8-9; Gal. 5:13-14 

Gal . 5:3 

Rom. 2:22-23 
1 Cor. 8:4 ; 2 Cor. 11 : 14 
Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4:2-3 
Gal . 2:16; Rom. 3:28 

1 Cor, 2:6,14 

1 Cor, 3:3; 14:33 

Rom . 6:13; 7:23 

Rom , 8:7 

Gal. 5:17; Rom. 8:9 
Rom. 2:1; 14:4 
1 Cor. 4:19 


After examining this list of possible parallels, scholars are 
again divided in their opinions with one group contending that 
Paul polemic ized against James, 2 3 ^ second set arguing that James 
polemicized against Paul, 24 ^^d a third group insisting that 

22This list is a combination of the parallels enumerated 
by Heinrich J. Holtzmann, " Jakobusbrief , " Bibe_l-Lex^^^^^ III: 187; 
James Moffat t, t^„I.n t r o duct^ 

Testament , 466; and Toxopeus, Jac o_busbx i.e f , 168-173. Paul's 
later letters are not included in this list but may be found in 
Appendix II, section 4.0. 

^^Theodore Zahn, Einlei tun g in das Neue Testament , I : 
52ff; Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, xci (We will use 
the 1897 ed.); Gerald H, Rendall, The__Epi_s£ie_jDf_S^ 
Jji43.i£„,.Chr^ i^sjt ian j^^^ , 8 6. 

2*Willi Marxsen . Introduction to the New Testament, 230. 

there is no real encounter bettween James and Paul at all in Jas. 
2 : 14-25.25 

Other investigators have searched the Apostolic Fathers 
to discover key parallels with the Epistle of James. 1 Clement 
and the Shepherd of Hermas have yielded a rich harvest of strik- 
ing resemblances , 26 MuBner ' s list^"^ comparing James and the 
Shepherd of Hermas is representative. 



1 : 


1 : 




2 : 


3 : 


3 ; 






4 : 


4 : 







General Description 

asking in prayer 
double-minded doubters do not receive 
commandment able to save the soul 
widows and orphans 
invoke a name over someone 
put a-way evil desires 
spirit from above 
indwelling spirit 
resist the devil and he will flee 

concerning s lander 
fear him who can save and destroy 
aroans of destitute heard by Lord 

Shepherd of Hermas 

Sim. 5,4,3 
Mand . 9:5 
Sim, 6,1,1 
Sim. 1:8 
Sim. 8,6,4 
Mand , 12,1,1 
Mand . 11:5 
Mand , 3:1 
Mand, 12,5,2 
Mand , 2:2 
Mand , 12,6,3 
Vis, 3,9,6 

in interpreting these similarities analogous divisions 
For most the Shepherd of Hermas is dependent upon the 
Epistle of so that "Hermas furnishes a terminus ad quern for 
the composition of James. "28 However, Pfleiderer and Holtzmann 
arrive at the opposite opinion, 2^ while a third group accepts the 
contention that James exhibits the same spirit as the Apostolic 

^'-'Eichholz , Glaube und Werke , 39,41, For our conclusions 
see Appendix II, section 3.3. 

26por parallels with 1 Clement and Hermas in the original 
language see Appendix II, 

2'^Franz MuBner, Dex_J§.^.o kMS]2.£.i® f - 37-38. 

^^Moffatt, InJ,rpj|uc t_i on , 467. Cf. Sophie Laws, 
mentary on the Epistle of James, 2 2-25; Mayor, Janies , cxlv 

29otto Pfleiderer, D a_s_yr_cl}rj, stent u^^ 

Lehren II: 539; Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Lelirbucfi_J,_er__hist^^^ 
krJ;, i i JLS.Il§i}_.iASi§J,iun^^ , 3 3 6. 

-cxivi , 
ten und 

Fathers but places the date earlier than Hermas, discerning no 

literary dependence either way. 30 

1,3 The B'our Strands of Jasnesian Interpretation 

In sorting out the considerable gajiiut of conclusions with 
regard to the relationship of James to other literature, one dis- 
covers that when a certain literary relationship is emphasized, 
all the corresponding questions of authorship, date, readers, 
origin, etc. are answered in precisely the same way. Thus we 
acquire four main categories or strands of interpretation. An 
exposition of James is seemingly locked into solving all the par- 
ticular problems of background within one of these specific 
strands. As a result there is seemingly no touchstone between 
the four worlds of Jamesian interpretcition listed below. 


fJSPii^sAzed OT and Jewish personal gospels esp. Apostolic 

r„§A§lL4oj3:Sh.iE. writings hearing of Matthew Fathers 


.'^M.L?. preChristian early first late second 

authorship century apostolic century 

author Christian James, another pseudonymous 

redactor of brother of James 

Jewish work Jesus 

readers originally Jewish Jewish Hellenistic 

Jews Christians Christians Christians 

relationship 1 Peter 1 Peter independent; James 

.t9_l._P§.t_®~l dependent dependent catechetical dependent 

upon James upon James material upon 1 Peter 

•^'-'Dibelius and Greeven, .James, 31; Lohse , "Glaube und 
Werke," 15-17; James A. Brooks, "The" 'Place of James in the New 
Testament Canon," SWJTh 12(1969): 46-47. 


to Paul 


prePauIine oi 



poleiuicized independent similarities polemicized 

ciCfci jLFiS I. 


£.§iM„i9.ll§AiE Christianized Apostolic 
l^£lM^PSlMIsili.£ during this Fathers uti; 
Fathers time ize James 

of phrase -~ 


emphases of 


.EJj„£ common Jewish reminiscences 
1 5__,.g,§,Y.ill9.§™,.o I, concepts 

1^ ^ i^ W. W 

from personal tradition or 
memory Matthew's 


iciainst Paul 

James uses 


Fathers or 



gospels or 

oral tradi- 

t i nri 


Split ta 



Mayor Shepherd 
Grosheide Gryglewicz 



Pf le^ideref 



The aim of this dissertation is to investigate the 

kinship between the Epistle of James and the Synoptic traditions. 
Yet one might ask: "Can we expect that an exploration of the 
interconnections with the Synoptic traditions will be the piece 
of ground requiring excavation to uncover the valuable clue to an 
age-old problem?" Based upon past research, one might expect 
that emphasizing the relationship with the Synoptic tradition 
would inevitably "lock us in" to one of theses categories just 
discussed. Possibly exegetes must face an ongoing lack of con- 
sensus such that the divergent roads of these categories may 
never meet. However, a comparative investigation of the Epistle 
of James with the Synoptic gospels at least offers us an 
opportunity to evaluate these divergent routes. Furthermore, it 

•^^Spitta, ZM_Geschichte , II: 2 16 posits another pos- 
sibility that Paul and James are dependent upon a third Jewish 
author . 

-^"In categories 11 and III some maintain that James 
polemicized against a jinisunderstanding of Paul. 


inay shed new light on an old difficult problem and reveal what 

Herder had in mind when he quipped, 

If the Epistle is "of straw," 

then there is within that straw 

a very hearty, firm, nourishing 

but as yet uninterpreted and unthrashed, grain. 33 

2.0 The Problems Connected with the Transmission of the 

Sayings of the Jesus-tradit ion34 

Not only do we approach this subject with the difficult 
background questions associated with the Epistle of James, taut 
the complicated history of the transmission of the sayings of 
Jesus also transports its problems into our discussion. Windisch 
believed that, "that the relationship between Jesus and the 
Epistle^ of James is even more difficult and puzzling than the 
well-known problem of Jesus and Paul, "35 j.j-^g unanswered questions 
include the following; Are there logia of Jesus cited in the 
Epistle of James? If so, what has influenced the form in which 
these sayings are transmitted? Must the principal determinant 
governing the particular wording of these sayings be assigned to 
the influence of one of the gospels, to a first stage in the 
transmission of the Jesus-tradition, or to the peculiar genre of 
J times . 

^^Johann G. Herder , Brief e zweener Bruder Jesu in unserem 
Kanon, in Herder's Sammliche Werke VII, ed. Bernhard Suphan (Ber- 
lin; Weidraann, 1884), 500, n. 2 quoted in Dibelius and Greeven, 
James , 1 , 

^'^I do not seek to distill the "historical Jesus" from 
the remembered interpretations of Jesus' first followers. There- 
fore, I employ the phrases "the sayings of Jesus" and "the 
sayings of the Jesus-tradition" as synonyms, 

^^Hans Windisch, .Giiqinon X, 380 quoted in Gerhard Kittel, 
"Der geschichtliche Ort des "jakobusbrief es , " ZNW 41(1942); 84, n. 

- J. 1 • 

2,1 The Vital Connection Between James and the Sayings of Jesus 

Countless exegetes have pointed to the Epistle of James 
as a veritable gold mine for the sayings of the Jesus-tradition. 
This position has a long history: already in 1886 Weizsacker 
noted that the presence of similarities between James and the 
Synoptic gospe?ls was a long observed fact. 36 Throughout the Euro- 
pean continent and the English speaking world scholars of varied 
theological traditions have repeated the chorus that there are 
more -allusions to the sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James 
than in any other NT writing. 3'^ Even when James' lack of 
Christology is emphasized, a close connection with the sayings of 
the Jesus-tradition is still posited. Rendtorff states. 

Even thoiigh the name of Jesus Christ is only cited twice 
(1:1; 2:1), there are countless close parallels of content 
and vocabulary with the sayings of Jesus in the first three 
gospels .38 

Moreover, this conclusion not only permeates introductions and 

encyclopedia. a,rticles which tend to follow past authorities in 

the field but is even found in dissertations dealing in depth 

with this subject. 39 

3 6 c a r 1 We i z s a c k e r , D a s_ a po^s_t o 1 j s c h e ^^^^ - 

3-^Heinrich J. Holtzmann, h e h r h u c h __ d e r^ 
Jil?ol._qg_i e , II: 383 follows the conclusions of Kern, Schmid, and 
B u n s e n ; Alfred W i k e n h a u s e r , Einleitxmg in d_a^_ JJe u e^^Te s t_a m e n^^ , 
343; Frederick W. Grosheide, D_e bxi?-l- A§;?3 ,?!•.,? E§.\lV,.§^R §M '3e br_i_ef 
Y3IL JfiokM' 34 2; Raoul Patry, .LJ_ JgJJ: r e_jie_^ j;,a_cg3^^ 

R9JLt§_§X§c_l_a__j)r^^^ 12; Joseph Chaine, Ij'_Eg_itre 

!^3....^^.^J-Iii..^3.£Si}iS.§. ' LXViil; Mayor, James, xliv-xlv; Donald Guthrie, 
M^M l§s,,£§lSerii ll2.^Q..^.MciA5,5, • 7 43; Simon Kistemaker, The Gospels in 
.Q.y-.LEsnt S j: udy / 92; Richard Kugelmann, Jajnes and, 8--9; 
Alexander Ross, The E£.ist_l_e_s of James and John, 16; William D. 
Davies, The Setting of ,the .Serjnon on the Mount, 402. 

"^^Heinrich Rendtorff, H o re £.. Jind_ t a t e r ^^^ 
in den Jakobusbr ief , 11, 

39cf. Felix Eleder, J ak o b u s b r j_e f _ ,u , 186. 


The standard procedure for indicating similarities 

between James and the Synoptic gospels consists of an enumeration 

of parallels. With regard to specifics Kugelman claims that 

Almost half of James' Epistle, forty-six of one hundred and 
eight verses, echoes Jesus" teaching as it is recorded in the 
gospels. Twenty-two of these forty-six verses are very 
similar in language and concepts to sayings of Jesus recorded 
in Matthew or in Luke. 40 

In Appendix I we have tabulated over 180 different parallels 

resulting in an average list of between 15 and 20. Since in the 

whole of the Pauline corpus only about 10-30 parallels are 

enumerated , 41 jnany have contended that the overabundance of 

reminiscences to the Jesus-tradition in James must be of some 

significance. On the other hand, an equally striking result of 

the research is the lack of consensus in the cataloging of these 

equivalents: three-fourths of the exegetes agree on only three 

parallels, tv^o-thirds on only six. '-2 hq^^, ^-.^j-, ^,_jq account for both 

this similarity in the authors' contentions and the dissimilarity 

of their resiilts? 

A second means of exhibiting the inter-connection between 

the teaching of James and Jesus consists in a systematic critique 

of the similarities of content. A few authors such as Patry use 

the corresponding themes of James and Jesus to structure their 

entire discussion. More frequently, commentators summarize the 

basic parallels of content in their introductions to the book, 43 

Many interpreters emphasize that the primary points of similarity 


41cf. below, p. 220. 

42For additional statistics see Appendix I, p. 309. 
^^Dibelius and Greeven, J am^e s , 28; Mayor, James, xliii- 
xliv . 

lie in the content of the ethical exhortations rather than in the 
closeness of verbal expressions. Randall , for instance, con- 
cludes that the teachings of the Synoptic gospels and the Epistle 
of James "agree closely in substance and content, yet with a 
marked absence of verbal borrowing or reproduction . "^4 

In addition to the areas of wording and content, numerous 
scholars draw attention to the formal eqiiivalence of style. 
Schaff, the church historian, states that the Epistle of James 
"echoes the? Sermon on the Mount in the- fresh, vigorous, pithy, 
proverbial, and sententious style of oriental wisdom, "45 rj^Yie com- 
mon use of imperatives46 ^rij-j ^j^e catchword connection betv^een 
these various exhortations*? is particularly striking. Espe- 
cially emphasized by Dibelius is thee kinship of various sets of 
jiietaphors . "18 These points of contact have led many exegetes to 
attach the descrifjtive adjective "significant" to any enumeration 
of the parallels between the JSplstle of Jaroes and the sayings of 
the Jesus-tradit icjn , 

2.2 Opposition to any Close Connection 

Between James and the Sayings-i of the Jesus-Tradition 

Opposition to this dominant opinion has arisen along 

three fronts, one denying dependence upon the Jesus-tradition and 

two minimizing any close association. Without knowledge of each 

4'*Rendall, James and Judaic Chri^stianity, 68, Cf. Alan 

H. McNeile and C.S.C, Williams, An IrrFroducTtTon to the Study c>f 

Ike New Test_ajsen.t,2 08 and Zahn . EinleiTungV I TsT. '"~ " " '" 

*5philip Schaff, Hi.storY_^jD.t_„the^ ChrJ.stlan^Ch^ (Grand 
Rapids: Eerdmans , 1910), I: 743. 

'^^In 108 verses James employs 54 imperatives (provided 
one counts participles which follow imperatives in a series) . 

^'^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 28. Cf. ch. 4, section 

'^Scf. below, p. 41 and Dibelius and Greeven, James, 7-11. 


other's work, Massebieau (1895) and Spitta (1896) published writ- 
ings denying the original Christian character of the Epistle of 
James. Whereas Massebieau argues for a Jewish background from 
the thought patterns of the epistle, 49 spitta presents a host of 
possible parallels to the sayings of Jesus and then one by one 
offers what he thinks are better parallels from Jewish litera- 
ture, 50 Agreeing with this thesis, Meyer has called special 
attention to the parallels with The Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs arguing that the Epistle of James is really an 
allegory based on Jacob's farewell address to his twelve sons 
(Gen. 49). 51 Subsequently Christian interpolations were added 
(1:1; 2:1,- 5:12,14) and the epistle was accepted by the Christian 
church into its canon. In these analyses the Jewish background 
takes prominence over the Jesus-tradition. 

Nineteenth century Dutch adherents to the Tubingen school 
of theology minimized the connection between James and the 
Synoptic traditions by emphasizing a decisive gap between the 
proclarn,at ion of Jesus and the teaching of James, Structuring 
church history along the lines of the Hegelian thesis-antithesis- 
synthesis pattern, the Tubingen school { Baur , Schwegler, Strauss) 
emphasized distinctions and dichotomies rather than following the 
traditional approach of harmonizing the dissimilarities in NT 
history and thought. Following this tradition the Dutch ex,e- 

■*®L. Massebieau. "L'Epitre de Jacques est-elle 1 ' oeuvre 
d'un Chretien," RHR 32(1895): 249-283, Cf. below, section 3.4, 

SOspitta, 2ur_Gesc]iichte , II: 155-183. His alternatives 
to the major parallels will be discussed in detail in ch. 3. 

^^Meyer, Ralsel, esp. 240-307. 


getes, Blom and Riedel,52 concentrated on the antithesis between 
James and Jesus rather than Baur ' s distinction between Peter and 
Paul. Blom believed that the list of textual parallels could 
just as easily be traced to Jewish literature or Paul as to the 
teaching of Jesus. 53 Furthermore, Jasnes ' complete neglect of the 
significance of Jesus' death, resurrection, and atonement for his 
theological reflection dramatically separates the content of the 
book of James from the Jesus-tradition. Ried,el, even more than 
Blom, presents a stark contrast between the ethical teaching of 
James and Jesus. The following table summarizes the differences: 

Jesus James 


24 the rudimentary principle is the controlling principle is 
the inner religious conscience obedience to the law 

25 emphasis on God as loving emphasis on the demands of 
father God 

35 God's will is the foundation knowledge of the law is the 
of the moral life foundation 

34 the neighbor is anyone and the neighbor is only the 
everyone partner in faith with a sim- 

ilar religious perspective 

57 the welcoming of all peoples Jewish particularism 
into the kingdom 

92 emphasis on moral freedom emphasis on an unbroken 
whereby it is impossible for series of good works where 
a person to be anything other at any moment someone's 
than good moral equilibrium could be 


5 2Blom, Jacobus , 191-207; Petrus A. Riedel, ,De_ze_deleer 
van den B rief van Jacobus verge leken met de zedeleer van jezus . 

^^The only parallels he speaks positively about are 
l;2=Mt. 5;11-12; l:10-ll=Mt. 13:6; 5:12--=Mt, 5:33-37. He produces 
these alternatives: Jas. 1:5 and 4:13-1 Kings 3:5,12 not Mt . 
7:7,11; l:22^Rom. 2:13 not Mt , 7:24; 3:l=Rom. 13:2 not Mt . 23:14 
par.; 3:12=Is. 5:2 not Mt . 7:16; 5 : 2=Job 13:28 and Is. 51:8 not 
Mt . 6:19; 4:4==Rom. 8:7 not Mt . 6:24; 5:17=1 Kings 17:1 and 18:1 
not Lk. 4:25. 

92 demands cleanness of heart demands unceasing acceptance 
and holiness towards God of the prescriptions of the 


92 the impetus for good works reward and punishment is the 
coroes from within goad for good works 

92 the goal is not reward but the goal of good works is 
one's relationship with God the reward 

This antithesis between the thought of James and Jesus functions 
as a methodological apriori or axiomatic presupposition through- 
out this analysis. Riedel is surely mistaken in his observations 
since he has unwittingly pulled Jesus out of his Jewish environ- 
ment into the 19th century and at the same time forced James back 
into a certain legalistic stereotype of Judaism. 

A thii'd proposal minimising the parallels with the Synop- 
tic gospels is offered by the form critic Dibelius who proposes 
that James ^ use of the genre of paraenesis is the key to unlock- 
ing the enigma of the Epistle of James. 64 ^j-^g formal similar- 
ities, harmony of style, and the shared ethical convictions are 
all traced, back by Dibelius to the use of sinailar paraenetic 
traditions. In this v^?ay the Influence of the Jesus-tradition 
upon the Epistle of Ja.mes is thrust into the background. 

2.3 Suggested Explanations for the Similarities 

with the Synoptic Tradition 

The most prominent cause for these different evaluations 

is the fact that the so-called "sayings of the Jesus-tradition" 

are nowhere introduced by James as logia of Jesus. His pen never 

begins a sentence with "For our Lord said" or "As Jesus said. " 

Instead the apparent references to sayings of Jesus are incor- 


Cf, below, section 3.5 


porated among James' exhortations. Furthermore, the resemblance 
of wording is frequently too indistinct to demonstrate any direct 
literary dependence upon one of the gospels. This, of course, 
does not prove that James neither knew nor employed the gospels. 
Yet the terms "citation" or "quotation" are too strong to des- 
cribe these parallels. James never quotes in exact phraseology a 
known tradition of Jesus nor does he validate his exhortations by 
citing the authority of Jesus. What then is the precise connec- 
tion between James' exhortations and words of the Jesus- 
tradition? Four regularly cited answers are given: 1) The 
similarities and divergencies v^ith Jesus' sayings can only be 
explained by a common Jewish backcrround; 2) James was familiar 
with the tveaching of Jesus through his personal recollections as 
the brother of Jesus ; 3) James was familiar with the sayings of 
Jesus throucfh the oral tradition preserved by the church; 4) The 
author was familiar with one of the Synoptic gospels or a pre-- 
edition of the gospel and, quoted it freely in his writing. 
2.4 The Relationship of Matthew and Luke to Jam,es 

Before describing how these various suggestions arose 
historically in the record of interpretation, we will raise the 
additional problem concer-ning which gospel tradition most resem- 
bles the exhortations of the Epistle of James. The usual prefer- 
ence is for Matthew and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, 
This premise has been repeated regularly so that Adamson in 1976 
qi7.otes Schmid from 1853. 

James not only agrees in numerous passages with Matthew's 
gospel, which appear to be but the echo of the discourses of 
Jesus... but also with that great body of precepts which Mat- 


thew gives as a. whole, the Sermon on the Mount, which in its 
whole spirit rnay be looked upon as the model of the Epistle 
of James;. 5 5 

On the other hand, several scholars of the 19th century place 
James closer to the special material of Luke discerning in each 
Ebionite influence. 56 since Feine's research the Epistle of James 
has for the most part been separated from Ebionite thought, 57 yet 
such scholars as Moffatt and Streeter have still argued for a 
closer verbal proximity to the Lucan parallels. Streeter even 
posits the likelihood that "the author of James had read Q in the 
recension known to Luke. "58 ^ third group of interpreters con- 
tends that this epistle is an independent primitive source of the 
sayings of Jesus. Patry even calls James "a fifth gospel 
although short and incomplete ." 59 The possibility of an addi- 
tional source for the sayings of Jesus has, of course, always 
intrigued scholars. But who is right in this debate? Is otir 
author completely independent of the Synoptic traditions or 
should he be linked with the commiinity of Luke or tied to the 
school of Matthew? 

3,0 The History of Interpretation of the 

Relationship between James and the Jesus-Tradition 

-^-' James A, Adamson, The_EpJ st le _o.f ^^^^^^^ 21. 

^^Weizsacker, Ap_ostol,isch^^ 379; F.C. Baur, Das 

Christentum und die christliche Kirche ,?|gl!„.sxs.ten_dre_l 

Jj§.|}ilhMl^X,,t§ ' 123; Daniel Schenkel , D§§,„J5hrisJ^us_bijh|_^ 
li?ld_dejLJia,chap_q_s_t_cJ_i 117 even considered Jas . 5:i2 "to 

be cioser'^'to Lk . 6:37 than to Mt . 5:33-37, 

5'^Feine, Jjl£otra_sbri_ef , 69-70. Hans J. Schoeps, "Exkurs 
I: Die Stellung des Jacobusbriefes," T he_o 1 o g_i e___un_d _G e s c 
Jjiil,§S£llOS.t_§,I}ilil!L§, ' 343 still claims that James is "ebionitische" 
but emphasizes the antignostic quality of the Epistle of James. 

^^Burnett H, Streeter, The Primitive Church: Studied with 
S£ec i^_l_ R^X«er^enc_e_t o_^ , 1 93 . 

^^Patry, Ja^cgues , 112. For a similar evaluation see 
R.S.T. Haslehurst,~''The"""Fifth Gospel," Th 35(1937): 102-103. 


A rehearsal of the main events in the history of inter- 
pretation provides the clearest means of elucidating the problems 
that have arisen in determining the relationship between the 
Epistle of James and the Synoptic traditions. 

3.1 The dominant oldest tradition identifies the author of 
this epistle with James, the brother of Jesus, and maintains that 
James' personal memory is the source from which he draws various 
sayings spoken by Jesus. The problem here, of course, is the 
testimony within the gospels thenselves that Jesus' brothers did 
not believe in him during his lifetime (Mk. 3:21,31ff; Jn . 7:5) 
and, therefore, would not have followed him around the 
countryside listening to his ©.reaching and teaching. This objec- 
tion, is tempered by the confusion in the history of interpreta- 
tion over the exact relationship between Jesus and his brothers. 
Ever since Jerome the Catholic tradition has equated one of the 
disciples named James with Jarnes , the brother of Jesus, 60 j^- 
appears that Jerome was influenced by The Gospel of the Hebrews 
which portrays the brother of Jesus as participating in the last 

S^The exact nature of the relationship between James of 
Jerusalem and Jesus has divided scholars throughout the history 
of interpretation. The Epiphanian theory (from Epiphanius, 
bishop of Salainis, died 403) states that ■ James was an elder half 
brother of Jesus from Joseph's first marriage. Thus the vir- 
ginity of Mary was safeguarded. The Helvidian theory (from Hel- 
vidius, died 384) contends that all Jesus' brothers and sisters 
were children of Joseph and Mary, hence all younger than Jesus. 

The Hieronymian theory (from Jerome, died 420) refuted the posi- 
tion of Helvidius by holding that Jesus' brethren were really his 
cousins, the offspring of Clopas and Mary, the sister of the 
mother of Jesus. Cf . D. Edmond Hiebert, The Ep ist le of James, 
30-34. The second view is rightly accepted by most modern 
scholars since the brothers of Jesus appear with their mother in 
the gospels (Mk. 3:21,31) and because of the late date of Jude . 


supper during which he swears to abstain from all nourishment 
until he sees the resurrected Jesus. 61 After Jesus appears to him 
(as in 1 Cor. 15:7), he becomes the most important witness of the 
resurrection. Thus we encounter a confusion between James of 
Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus, and Jarae^s the apostle, the son 
of Alphaeus in the early traditions. This confusion of identity 
may have helped to create the dominant tradition that personal 
memory is the source of the Jesus--sayings in the Epistle of 
Klsames, The popularity of . this opinion has continued beyond the 
rise of the critical period in Biblical scholarship and is espe- 
cially evident in the evangelicalism of the English-speaking 
world. Mayor, for instance, believes that our author "grew up 
under his Brother's influence, and that his mind was deeply 
imbued with his Brother's teaching, "62 Knowling likewise finds in 
the Epistle of James "references of such a kind as might have 
come from the fullness of a. faithful memory, a memory retentive 
not merely of oral tradition but of words actually heard from the 
lips of Jesus, "^"^ This emphasis has thrived to the present day as 
will become apparent in the final section of this rehearsal of 
the main points of the history of interpretation, 

3.2 In the 19th century a lively discussion of the problems 
of the Epistle of James took place within German scholarly peri- 

^^For more detailed information over Jerome's opinions 
see Dibelius and Greeven, James, 12-13, n. 29-30. 
^ 2 May o r , James , x 1 v . 
^"^Richard" J, Knowling, The_Ep,isJJ_e_oJ__St_^_J^^ xxi . 


odicals.64 jn this series of discussions Bruckner offei^ed a quite 
radical solution, positing the dependence of the sayings in James 
upon the Gospel of Matthew itself, 65 since Bruckner also accepted 
a dependence of James upon Romexis, Hebrews, and Revelation, he 
became a prominent proponent of assigning a late date to the 
Epistle of James. With the assumption of a late date a relation- 
ship with the written Synoptic gospels was, of course, easier to 
accept. 66 

3.3 Although many detailed source theories were being spun by 
the authors of this period, even these source critics separated 
themselves from Bruckner's conclusion of dexjendence upon the 
Gospel of Matthew. Instead they looked to the oral tradition to 
explain the similarities and divergencies between the sayings of 
Jesus and the ethical teaching of James. This position quickly 
became the dominant position in German scholarship when it was 
accepted by such men as Beyschlag, Holtzmann, and Feine,^? ^^,j^q 
criticized the findings of Bruckner. 

3.4 In 1896 Spitta provoked a landslide of literature and 
renewed interest in the problems of the Epistle of James when he 

^'^From its first issiae the Ze_its_chr_ixt_fjir _wi^^^ 
llche Theologis? wrestled with these issues: Adolf Hilgenfeid, 
"Das Urchr istenthum und seine neuesten Bearbeitungen, " ZWTh 
1(1858): esp. 405ff; Eduard Zeller, "Ueber Jakobus 1,12," MfS 
6(1863): 93-96; Wilibald Grimm, "Zur Einleitung in den Brief des 
Jacobus," ZWTh 13(1870): 377-394; Adolf Hilgenfeid, "Der Brief 
des Jakobus," ZWTh 16(1873); 1-33; Wilhelm Brlickner, "Zur Kritik 
des JakobusbrTef es , " ZWTh 17(1874): 530-541; Heinrich J, 
Holtzmann, "Die Zeitlage des Jakobusbrief es , " ZWTh 25(1882): 292- 

^^Briickner, "Kritik Jakobusbrief es, " 537, 

^^^In the Netherlands Blom, Jacobus, 199 supported a know- 
ledge of Matthew by the Epistle of James. 

6'^Willibald Beyschlag, "Der Jakobusbrief als urchrist- 
liches Geschichtsdenkmal, " ThSKr 47(1874): 143; Holtzmann, BiMl.Z 
Lex i kon III: 180; Fe i ne , Jakobusbr .1 e f . 134. 


proposed that this letter was not initially a Christian document 
at all. As was mentioned earlier, the Frenchman, Massebieau, and 
the German, Spitta, independently concluded that James Vi?as a 
Jewish document transformed into Christian literature by the 
addition of interpolations at Jas . 1:1 and 2:1.68 goth pointed to 
the lack of Christology in the letter to prove its compatabilitv 
with preChristian Jewish writers, Spitta methodically discussed 
numerous parallels to the Synoptic gospels and everywhere offered 
other alternatives. Massebieau, on the other hand, argued more 
generally that if the author were a Christian, he would certainly 
have distinguished his own words from those of the gospel tradi- 
tion. Although using different approaches, both concurred that a 
dependence upon the words of Jesus was out of the question. ^9 

An immediate negative response to their conclusions was 
recorded in the scholarly literature throughout Europe. Already 
in 1896 Haupt argued that most of the parallels adduced by Spitta 
were completely arbitrary, having little or no significance, 
often either losing the original sense James had in mind or 
inserting conceptions which were completely strange to the nature 
of his letter. For Spitta "s thesis to be proven acceptable, 
Haupt contended that one must show that all the contents of this 
letter could be grasped by a Jewish writer. Haupt credited 
Spitta with choosing the one book of all the NT writings that 
offered the best possibility for such a thesis. However, he then 

S^Spitta omits the words "and of the Lord Jesus Christ" 
in 1:1 while Massebieau omits only "Jesus Christ". 

^^Spitta, Zur __GescJiichte , II: 165, Cf . Massebieau, "Jac- 
ques , " 2 56 . 

2 3- 

called attention to the similarities with the moral teaching of 
Jesus and emphasized the certain Christian re>ferences of Jas . 
1:18,21; 2:7; 3:9 and 5 : 7--8 to discredit Spitta's hypothesis , ^O 
Other German scholars have agreed with Spitta's interpolation 
theory but still maintained a Christian author ship . '^'1 in the 
Netherlands van Manen72 j^a,^ difficulty accepting Spitta's theory 
that a Christian interpolator would be satisfied to merely insert 
the name of Jesus Christ in two places. Certainly this would not 
make up for all the lack of references to the incarna.tion, atone- 
ment, suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus or the fact 
that not Jesus Abraham, Rahab, Job, and Elijah are models for 
ethical behavior. In France a negative reaction was registered 
by Rosens ^jy f-^Q very year in which Spitta's conclusions were 
published. In Switzerland Steck thanked Spitta for his enumera- 
tion of the widespread parallels between James and the Jewish 
literature but contested Spitta's view that Paul polemicized 
against James, contending that such a thoroughly integrated 
teaching as Paul's instruction on righteousness could never be 
dependent on such an unsystematic, spiritually poor perception as 
James. 74 Qff -j-j-^g continent in England Mayor published a com- 
pletely new 1897 edition of his commentary to refute the findings 

'^'-'Erich Haupt , "F. Spitta, Der Brief des Jakobus," ThSKr 
69(1896): 767. Cf . also Dibelius and Greeven, .James, 23. ~ 

'^■'-Friedrich Hauck, Der__Bj;;;_ief_jies^^^ 17. 

"^^w.C. van Manen, "Jacobus geen "christen?" ThT 31(1897): 

"^^Vincent P. Rose, "L'Epitre de Saint Jacques est-elle un 
ecrit Chretien?" RB 5(1896): 534. 

^^R. Steck, "Die Konfession des Jakobusbr ief es , " ThZS 
5(1898) : 188. 


o„ Spitta.75 Cone ai-gued that the eschatological terminology of 
Jas . 5:7-8 is decisively closer to Christian parallels than to 
the parallels from the book of Enoch emumerated by Spitta.76 
Ropes summarizes the conclusions of most when he proclaimed that 
"there is; no sentence which a Jew could have written and a 
Christian could not; its Jewish ideas are without exception those 
that a Christian could hold. "7? 

Even though the theories of Massebieau and Spitta have 
been resolutely rejected, derivations from their thinking have 
lived on in the history of interpretation. Von Soden presents a 
newly-minted postulation of partial Jewish authorship contending 
that Jas. 3:1-18 and 4:11-5:6 are complete discourses in them- 
selves displaying no accord with Christian writings. Assuming 
that these two sections betray a different mood from the rest of 
the epistle in tinne, language, and manner of apprehending things, 
von Soden conjecttires that the former section is an essay by an 
Alexandrian scribe while the latter constitutes a fragment from a 
Jewish apocalypse. As evidence he points out that of the forty 
words in James foreign to the NT only six fall outside these two 
sections . 78 

It is interesting that especially Jewish interpreters 
have leaned in the direction of Spitta 's theories. Looking for 

■^^In his 1897 edition Mayor adds Chapter VII entitled 
"Harnack and Spitta on the Date of the Epistle," cliv-clxxviii , 

"^Orello Cone, "James (Epistle)," EncY_c]^_p_aedJ^_B_iW 
II: 2 3 2 5. 

'^■^ James H. Ropes, E pis tle__gf_JJ;_ ._ James , 3 2-33. 

'^^Von Soden, Jaiiobus, 173. purrapia and eiiipvxoq in 1:21 
and xpuo-ocSQKxOAioQ , 7rpocTU)7ro\np.Trxec, , aueheoc,, and eipniienoc, in ch . 
2 . 

parallels in contemporary Jewish writings, Kohler argues that no 
valid reasons can be given for holding that "the brethren" 
addressed in the Epistle of James may not have been Jews of a 
particular frame of mind, such as the Essenes, who formed a 
strong brotherhood in the Diaspora, Specifically concerning Jas . 
5 he retorts, "To ascribe these instructions to a believer in 
Jesus as the Savior and Hearer of men is absolutely without foun- 
dation. ""^^ Schoeps , another Jew, also concludes that there is no 
r'epresentative Christian teaching in the Epistle of James. He 
does not rule out the possibility that it is merely a Jewish 
document but prefers to classify it a,s a document in the anti- 
gnostic camp of the early Catholic church during the first half 
of the second century.'^'"' 

Finally, Meyer has revised Spitta's hypothesis, positing 
that James is really an allegory on Gen, 49. Just as vTacob 
addressed his twelve sons, so James (the Greek form of the name 
Jacob) addresses the twelve tribes who are now dispersed. Meyer 
accounts for the apparent disorder of ethical injunctions by 
insisting that this epistle consists of twelve diverse exhorta- 
tions each connected with a patriarch. He finds references to 
Simeon in 1:19-24 (hearing and not being angry based on Gen. 

'^^Kaufmann Kohler, "James, General Epistle of," iL._iIsili.§,?i 
Encyclopedia, 1925 ed,, VII: 69, 

^^choeps , Theologle des Judenchristentums , 3 4 4. He 
finds gnostic catchwords in 1:18,25; 2:20. Other allusions to 
gnostic tendencies have been detected in the antithesis between 
true and false wisdom (3:13-18) as well as in the terms (pvx'-Kfi 
(3:15) and xeAcioc; (1:4,17,25; 3:2), But as Robinson, .Redat_iri^, 
123 points out, "None of these need imply anything m.ore than can 
be found in the Jewish wisdom literature or in Philo or, for 
example, in 1 Cor, 2:12-14; 15:44-46," 

v2 6- 

49:5-7), Levi in l;26--27 (Levitical purity), Judah in 2:5-8 (the 
royal tribe), and Dan in 2:12--13 and 3:1 (Dan means judge). 
Meyer especially probes the intertestamental book, The Testaments 
of the Twelve Patriarchs, finding countless hidden references in 
the Epistle of James while at the same time minimizing any rela- 
tionship to the sayings of the Jesus- tradi t ion . ^ ^ Meyer ^ s 
hypothesis has met with some approval,*^ 2 yg^ the majority of 
writers have quietly dismissed his conclusions. Shepherd articu- 
lates well the dominant opinion v>;hen he writes, "But his theory 
of a Jewish Urschrift on the Patriarch Jacob, as a basis for the 
Epistle of James, is f antast ic . "83 

3.5 After the epoch-making preChristian hypothesis of Mas- 
sebieau and Spitta, the next momentous event in the history of 
research is the commentary by Dibelius in 1921. He was in agree- 
ment with the dominant German tradition that the oral transmis- 
sion of the sayings of Jesus by the church was the key to under- 
standing the similarities and differences between the dominical 
sayings and the instruction of James. His additional contribu- 
tion concerned the role that genre played in explaining certain 
peculiarities in the Epistle of James. For Dibelius the particu- 
lar genre of paraenesis explained the lack of continuity and 
structure in the book (p. 5), the pervasive eclecticism of vari- 
ous sources by the author (p. 2), the repetition of identical 
motifs in different places within the writing (p. 11), the corn- 

el m e y e r , R a_t§.£.i ' 8 6. 

^^Burton S, Easton, "The Epistle of James," Th,e,_I_nte_r- 
pre t e_r „' s Bible, XII: 12; Marxsen, Xn_trodu_ctJx)^^^^^ 231. 
^^hepherd, "James and Mat'thev>? , " 40, n. 2, 


bination of Jewish and Hellenistic material (p, 26), the lack of 
explicit quotation, formulas (p. 29), the relationship to 1 Peter 
(p, 30), Hennas, 1 Clement, and Hebrews (p, 32), the lack of 
Christology and specific Christian references (p. 46), our 
inability to determine the geographical localization of Jeisnes (p. 
47), its late and gradual dissemination into the canon (p. 53), 
and finally also the problem we are chiefly concerned with, the 
relationship between the Synopjtic traditions and the Epistle of 
James (p . 17 ) . 

Dibelius' conclusion about genre has won large support. 
Windisch soon accepted Dibelius' suggest ion , ^^ and in recent 
years a host of exegetes have followed his lead,^^ On the other 
hand, many have disagreed with the implications which Dibelius 
drew from his supposition of genre. Kittel, for instance, 
strongly objects to Dibelius' contention that the genre of 
paraenesls is the reason the Epistle of James lacks a concrete 
historical background, has various verses and pericopes with no 
connection of content, and alludes to sayings from the Jesus- 
tradition without any introductory f ormulat ions . 86 Likewise Hauck 
refuses to explain all the references to the words of Jesus 
merely as siinilarities of genre; he does not want to eliminate 

^^Hans Windisch, Die katholischen Brief e , 4. For further 
support see below in ch . 5, section 3.5. 

^^Blackmann, Hahn, Kummel, Lohse , MuBner, Schnackenberg, 
Schrage, Songer, Wanke . For opposition to Dibelius' thesis see 
the discussion in Wiard Popkes, Adressaienj^ S Ituation und Forjn 
des Jakobusbr^i e f_es , 12. 

^^Gerhard Kittel, "Der Brief des Jakobus , " ThLM 
44(1923): 3-7. Cf, Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort," 71. 


James' personal choice and individual contribution.^'^ In the 
Dutch Reformed tradition Grosheide questions how paraenesis could 
explain why James, out of all the possibilities of exhortsition, 
would choose those which he remembei'ed from Jesus, ^^ These 
divergent reactions to Dibelius' proposal of genre betray the 
different conclusions reached by authors on the qxiestion of the 
relationship between the Epistle of James and the sayings of the 
Jesus- tradition. 

3.6 Kittel became a major voice in this discussion in 1941 
when he coupled, his support for an early date of the Epistle of 
James in Palestine with a particular explanation concerning our 
problem of the relationship between the sayings of Jesus and the 
ethical exhortations of James. He postulated that the peculiar 
form in which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted in James 
(without introduction and simply as x-eminiscences ) betrays a 
first stage in the process of transmission . ^^-^ By examining the 
sayings of Jesus in James, Paul, and the Apostolic Fathers, Kit- 
tel discerns a series of stages in the transmission process 
beginning with an oral tradition where the sayings of a living 
person are applied freely to various situations, then passing 
through a second stage where Jesus' words are authoritatively 
quoted with reference to a person in the past, and concluding in 
a final stage where the sayings of Jesus are referred to as 

S'^Hauck, J3:.k-l2 t>ii§. ' 10- Cf. also pp. 21-22 for further 
wpirnings about inferring too many implications from Dibelius' 
conclusions . 

Q^Grosheide, Jakqbus , 342. 

89Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort," 94. 

scripture with a fixed wording. 90 James is then representative 
of the first stcscfe where the words of Jesus occur without ack- 
owledgement or direct citation. It is therefore the f ree ^ flcix- 
able manner of transmission in the first stage which accounts for 
the divergencies with the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic tradi- 

Strong opposition has arisen against Kittel's percep- 
tions. Already in 1944 Aland endeavored, as he says, to under- 
stand Kittel and Dibelius together, ^^ Finding that task impos- 
sible, he rejects Kittel's findings, arguing that 1) the Apos- 
tolic 5'athers ' references to the sayings of Jesus are not scrip- 
ture citations, as Kittel insisted, but Lord-citations-2 vvhich do 
not equate Jesus' words with the authority of the OT ; 2) there is 
an equally large number of reminiscences (which Kittel assigned 
to the early stages) in the Apostolic Fathers; 93 j^p^^j therefore 3) 
the Epistle of James could just as easily have originated during 
the time of the Apostolic Fathers and need not be the earliest 
Christian document as Kittel had proposed. 9*^ After investigating 
the evidence Davies concurred in the dismissal of Kittel's 
thesis, stating that "the attempt to distinguish distinct stages 
in the use of the sayings of Jesu.s , . , must be regarded as 

90cf. ch. 5, sections 2,1-2.2. 

^■^Kurt Aland, "Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und der Jakobus- 
brief," ThLZ 69(1944); 97. 

9"2i ci, 13:2; 46:8; Did, l:3f; Pol. Phil, 2:3; Herm. Sim. 

^^Did,, 48 times; Barn., 19; 1 CI., 14; Herm., 52; 2 CI., 
30; Ig. , 32; Pol, Phil . , 17. 

^^Aland, "Herrenbruder Jakobus," 104. See also Wolfgang 
Schrage, "Der Jakobusbrief , " in Horst Balz und Wolfgang Schrage, 
Die katholischen Briefe, 11. 

questionable . "95 Noticing: thert it is precisely within paraenetlc 
sections that reminiscenses and allusions (rather than direect 
citations) are encountered, Lohse proposed the alternative solu- 
tion that the genre and not the date of the writing explains the 
particular form of transmission used by the author. ^'^ 
3.7 Recently the history of interpretation has witnessed a 
renewal of the thesis that James availed himself of the Gospel of 
Matthew in transmitting the sayings of the Jesus-tradition. 
Already in 1937 Goodspeed had considered the possibility,^'^ but 
the arguments of Shepherd in 1956 provided the driving force for 
the reconsideration of this theory. The new twist added by- 
Shepherd was the supposition that James was acquainted with the 
Gospel of Matthew only from hearing it read during worship serv- 
ices . 

It would be aibsurd to maintain that the author of the Epistle 
had a written copy of the Gospel of Matthew in front of him 
when he put together his discourses. The lack of precise 
quotation indicates this much. But his familiarity with the 
Gospel was far greater than a vague renainiscence . We suspect 
that the Gospel of Matthew was known to him from hearing it 
read in his Church. ®® 

Shepherd believes that the relationship between Matthew and James 
is analogous to the special relationship bet^A7een Matthew and the 
letters of Ignatius of Antioch and the Didache.^® From these con- 
nections he argues for a place of origin in greater Syria 

^ ^ D a V i e s , .S^.t t j-.n 2 , '404. 

^^Lohse, "Glaube und Werke," 9-13. He calls attention to 
Rom. 12 and 13 and 1 Thess . 5. 

^'^Edgar J, Goodspeed, An Introduction to the Mew Testa - 
ment, 291. Of, also Robert M, Cooper, "Prayer: a Study in Mat- 
thew and JaJixes," Encounter 29(1968): 270. 

^^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 47, 

^^Ibid, , 49. For our evaluation of Shepherd's conclu- 
sions see ch. 4, section 1.2. 


( "inclusive of Phoenicia and even Palestine ~~ not in the nar- 
rower limits of Antioch and its environs") and a date just after 
the composition of Matthew's gospel. Five years after the 
appearance of Shepherd's proposal, Gryglewicz also posited a 
dependence upon Matthew, but this time upon a written Greek ver- 
sion of Matthew which had already existed in. a Hebraic form 
around the year 50. ^'-'^ Gryglwicz perceives a literary dependence 
based upon the common occurrence of certain phrases and concepts: 

Jas. l:5f = Mt. 7:1; 21:21-23 {iv ntazei} 

1 ; 22 = 7:24 (rroLiTcnQ Aoyou ) 

3:10 = 15:18f ( egepxeaOa' L , atop-a) 

3:12= 7: 15f (auKQ) 

4:10- 1 8 ; 3 f ; 23:12 ( hum 1 1 i a t i on ,, exa 1 1 a t ion, ) 

5:2f =: 6:19f {9riaaupLi^e Lv , ai'iq, , fipuaLQ) 

5:12 - 5:34-36 (on swearing oaths) 

5:15 = 12:31f {a(peericrezaL autG)!^! 

As with Bruckner in the 19th century, the thesis of Shepherd and 
Gryglewicz has encountered the stiff opposition of weighty argu- 
ments. -'*^'2 MuBner exemplifies the attitude of most comme^ntators 
when he chooses to continue in the established tradition of 
explaining the correspondence and variance of James vjith the 
Synoptic gospels through the oral transmission of the sayings of 
Jesus by the church. ^^^ 

3.8 Throughout this unstable history of interpretation the 
thesis that James, the brother of Jesus, drew from his personal 
memory various sayings frora the teaching of Jesus has continually 
surfaced. Recently in the English-speaking world it has received 

lO^Feliks Gryglewicz, "L'Epitre de St, Jacques et 
I'Evanglle de St. Matthieu," RTK 8,3(1961): 55. 

^'-'^Ibid. , 43-56, For our critique see ch, 4, section 

^■02Qf_ ch . 4^ sections 1.2-2.3 

-'5 d- 

extensive support in the commentaries. Ross, following the lead 

of Robertson, almost romantically exclaims, 

We can in fact scarcely resist the conclusion that we are 
listening to the reproduction of the thoughts from a mind 
that had lived and laboured for years alongside the Master- 
mind which created and gave them perfect utterance. They 
drop out freely and spontaneously, as from a mind that had so 
absorbed them that they had become part and parcel of its 
very self. Had James not listened to Jesus' talk, as they 
wrought side by side, at the bench in Nazareth, and half- 
unconsciously, half-reluctantly, all his thinking had become 
moulded by it.l^'* 

In a typical fashion Adamson demands that it is not enough to 
contend that James benefited from the church's transmissions of 
the Jesus' tradition since the character of the reminiscenses 
demand a personal witness to Jesus' preaching itself. ^^^ This 
position is being passed on to the future generation through the 
use of Guthrie's NT introduction in many evangelical English- 
speaking seminaries . ^06 Numerous examples could be added to argue 
that this is the dominant position in the English-speaking world 
today, even though the NT record (Mk. 3:21,31ff; Jn . 7:5) clearly 
teaches that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him ciuring his 
lifetime , 

3.9 If we were to catalogue the various options given to 
solve the relationship between the exhortations of James and the 
logia of Jesus, we could enumerate these five solutions: 
i) Dependence upon various Jewish writings and traditions. The 
similarities to the sayings of Jesus are accounted for by a com- 
mon environment of thought and backaround of tradition. 

10^ J. A. Robertson, Hidden Romance of the New Testament 
quoted in Ross, James and John, 17. 
lO^Adamson, JajpeLS' 21. 
lO^Gu-t-hrie, N'T "introduction, 743. 

Support: Massebieau (1895), Spitta (1896), von Soden --- partial 
agreement (1899), Kohler (1925), Meyer (1930), Hartmann (1942), 
Thyen (1955), Easton (1957), Marxsen (1963). 

2) Dependence upon the Gospel of Matthew, Here the disparity is 
accounted fo.r by an oral heai:'ing of the gospel at worship serv- 
ices (Shepherd) or by an interweaving of these sayings into the 
epistle to further James' particular literary purposes. 

Support: Blom (1869), Bruckner (1874), Grafe (1904), Goodspeed — 
a possibility (1937), Shepherd (1956), Gryglwicz (1961), Cooper 
(1968) , The possibility of dependence is postulated by most 
writers who accept a second century dating for James. 1^7 

3) Dependence upon James' personal memory of the oral teachings 
of Jesus. The divergencies are accounted for by differing per- 
sonal recollections between James and the Synoptic writers or 
James' particular style. 

Support: Schmid (1853), Mayor (1892), Patry (1899), Knowling 
(1904), Grosheide (1927), Ross (1954), Guthrie (1962), Kistemaker 
(1972), Adamson (1974), 

4) Dependence upon the oral transmission of the sayings of Jesus 
in the churches. The reason for dissonance is the existence of 
separate comniunities of Christians who trans.mitted the sayings in 
slightly different forms or the positing of particular stages of 
transmission where constancy of form and the presence of intro- 
ductory formulas were modified (Kittel). 

Support: Huther (1865), Holtzmann (1871), Beyschlag (1874), Feine 
(1893), Kittel (1942), McNeile (1953), Eleder (1964), Williams 
(1965), Davles (1966), MuBner (1967), Laws (1980). 

5) Dependence upon the genre of paraenesis, the passing on of 
traditional material from various authorities (thus similarities) 


■ f. Toxopeus ' list, J a c obusbr_i_e f. , 59-61. 


within the vocabulary and purposes of the individual author (thus 

differences ) . 

Support: Dibelius (1921), Windisch (1930), Aland (1944), Lohsve 
(1957), Schrage (1973). 

4.0 It is interesting to note tha,t the interpretation of the 

relationship between James and the Synoptic tradition has been 

substantially affected by the changing climate of gospel 

criticism, from source and literary criticism, through form 

criticism, to the emphasis upon redaction criticism. At the high 

tide of source criticism there was a great search for the 

literary connections between James and other writings. Detailed 

studies were undertaken on the relationship between James and 1 

Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 Clement. Briickner even 

posited a direct relationship to the Gospel of Matthew. With the 

rise of form criticism the emphasis switched from literary 

sources to the oral traditions at work before the gospels were 

written. Therefore literary relationships were minimized. As 

Dibelius explains, 

In a paraenetic text, which to a large extent hands down 
tradition, it is difficult to prove with certainty any 
dependence upon other writers. For no literary conclusions 
at all can be drawn from many of the parallels , . . .108 

Instead the writings, including James, were seen to derive from a 

conglomeration of traditions in which the author's individuality 

consisted only in his selection and arrangement of traditional 

material. As the gospel writers were "scissors and paste" men, 

so James was a transmitter of community paraenesis; his own role 

in the process was therefore minimized. Dibelius even contends 


Dibelius and Greeven, James, 26. 


that James had no theology, 109 that he "is not a thinker, a 
prophet, or an intellectual leader, but rather a pedagogue, one 
among many, who appropriates and distributes from the property 
common to all, "^10 The emphasis of the form critic did not fall 
upon the author's purpose in presenting the material to a certain 
audience but rather upon a whole series of audiences and sets of 
circumstances from the tradition. Therefore Dibelius can say, 
"The admonitions in James do not apply to a single audience and a 
single set of circumstances; it is not possible to construct a 
single frame into which they will fit."m 

With the rise cf redaction criticism, again the tide 
changed in scholarship dealing with the Epistle of James, The 
role of the author has once more come to the forefront. It is 
no'w contended that James presents his own legitimate theology 
which can be investigated and compared with other NT theologies, 
as that of Matthew, for instance. Such research might even lead 
to certain discoveries about basic background information to this 
epistle. Therefore it is not the tradition, but James himself, 
tied historically to his religious community, who has chosen what 
material to include from the Jesus- tradi tion . Thus in recent 
Y'ears we are seeing an increasing number of books and articles 
aimed at the various emphases of James' theology. H2 

lOQjbid., 21.. 
110j|3j(3_^ 25, 

•mibid., 11. 

^^12QeQj,g Braumann, "Der theologische Hintergrund des 
Jakobusbrief es, " ThZ 18(1962): 401-410; Rudolf Hoppe , Der 
ii}.®oi2Si§c]ie Hint^ergruiid des :Iako bu^br i_e res ; Josef B. Soucek, "Zu 
den Probleraen das Jakobusbrief es , " Evfh~18'( 1958 ) : 463. 

5,0 From our review of the highpoints of the history of 
interpretation two sets of problems eme»rge : 1) those connected 
with the background questions of James, i.e. problems of author- 
ship, date, origin, readers, etc, and 2) those a.ssociated with 
the transmission of the sayings of Jesus. With regard to the 
first set of problems we need to ask the question: What further 
information about the date and place of origin can be gleaned 
from a discussion about the relationship of the Epistle of James 
to the Synoptic gospels? Could we, for instance, substantiate 
the presence of a similar community of origin between James and 
Matthew by establishing an interconnection between their 
theologies? With the second set of problems involving the trans- 
mission of the sayings of Jesus we need to likewise ask: Did 
James consciously cite this Jesus- tradition , and if so, how many 
allusions to these sayings do we encounter? Is there one tradi- 
tion of transmission (Matthew, Luke, Q) that is noticeably closer 
to the wording of James, or do the Jamesian allusions form a com- 
pletely independent testimony alongside the Synoptic gospels? In 
addition, what accounts for the particular similarities and dif- 
ferences with these Synoptic traditions? Is it the application 
of a written tradition (gospel) to a specific situation, the per- 
sonal memory of the author, the development of divergent oral 
traditions of transmission, or the use of a common genre of lit- 
erature (paraenesis, for example)? Finally, we must inquire 
whether the sayings in the Epistle of James support the 
hypothesis that stages of transmission have developed in the 
passing on of the sayings of Jesus. 

In order to investigate these questions in a systematic 
format,, we will first take up the issue of preexistent material 
in the Epistle of James. In chapter 2 we will survey how and in 
what form James has incorporated known preexistent material from 
the OT and intert estamental literature. We will investigate 
whether the author quotes preexistent material in a verbatim man- 
ner or by merely offering allusions and freely-composed recollec- 
tions of the tradition. Having answered this question, we can 
then in chapter 3 compare these conclusions with James ^ manner of 
transmitting the material frori) the Synoptic traditions to 
determine whether he employs source material in a consistent man- 
ner. It is unnecessary to examine every single parallel between 
the Jesus-tradition and the Epistle of James since in many cases 
we are only talking about minor similarities of content or word- 
ing. Yet it is important to analyze sufficient cases to be able 
to arrive at valid well-evidenced conclusions. Therefore, we 
have elected to discuss those parallels that are listed by at 
least one-third of the 60 authors whose research has been docu- 
mented in Appendix I. This will mean the investigation of twenty 
parallels between the Epistle of James and the Synoptic 
gospels. -13 irj chapter 4 we will ask the question whether the 
sayings in James are specifically connected with the Jesus- 
traditions in Matthew, Luke, and Q or with one of the communities 
that produced these documents. 

In chapter 5 we will turn from discussing the specific 
background of the exhortations of Jajnes in the Synoptic tradition 

-'• ^^Parallels listed by at least one-tenth of the authors 
are included in Appendix I. 


to considering the transmission process itself. Is the explana- 
tion for James' divergencies of form and lack of introductorY 
formulas found in the positing of different stages in the trans- 
mission process, or does the common genre of paraenesis explain 
these changes? First we will investigate Kittel's hypothesis of 
three progressive stages of development. Here it will be impor- 
tant to compare the transmission of the sayings of the Jesus- 
tradition in James, Paul, and the Apostolic Fathers to determine 
whether the history of transmission is 1) fixed; 2) fluid; or 3) 
in stages. Then we will turn to Dibelius' solution of the genre 
of paraenesis. Here the question of the genre of James (epistle, 
homily, diatribe, wisdom literature, paraenesis) will be tackled 
followed by s: closer examination of the manner in which sayings 
are passed on in paraenetic literature and its implications for 
the Epistle of James. 

In chapter 6 we will explore whether the results of our 
study facilitate the resolving of certain long-lasting problems 
in the interpretation of the Epistle of James, including the lack 
of Christology, the problem of Jewish or Hellenistic background, 
the place of origin, the date, and finally authorship. Thus in 
our discussion there will be a mov/ement from the sayings of the 
Jesus-tradition in James, to the transmission of the sayings in 
general, and finally, to the problems of background associated 
with the Epistle of James. A short chapter surveying our conclu- 
sions (chapter 7) will bring our discussion to its climax. 


Chapter 2 

1.0 In order to discern whether James utilizes sayings from 
the Jesus-tradition, it is important to establish how preexistent 
material can be detected. The most obvious indication is the 
positioning of an introductory formulation prior to a group of 
v^ords closely or exactly resembling those in some other body of 
literature. Six such formulae citandi appear in the Epistle of 
James, either introduced with ypattif] (2:8,23; 4:5) or a verb of 
saying (b eiTTWv 2:11; etnev Ka'i 2:11; 3 l6 Aeye i 4:6) with the 
implied subject being either God or scripture. 

The conjunction 6t i also frequently prepares the reader 
for pr-eexistent material. The recitative ozi introduces direct 
discourse and "serves the function of our quotation marks" ^ with 
regard to preexistent sayings. With verbs of mental perception 
(esp. yiyuaKW and otda) the explicative on can also refer to 
already known material, 2 Familiar ethical instruction from the 
church's teaching tradition is alluded to in this manner through 

^BDF 470. 

^In Pol. Phil, the phrase eldorec oxi has become a 
standax'd means to refer to Paul's letters: 1:3; 4:1; 5:1; 6:1; 
11:2 (in Latin), and 9:2 with ttsttc capeyouQ oxi. In 1 Peter a 
form of ypaipri with oti Is used in 1:16 and 2:6 and on or sLoxl 
by itself in 1:16, 24; 2:3; 3:9 ?; 4:8,14; 5:5 to introduce an OT 
quote in a recitative manner. Likewise, ox i. is employed to 
allude to apocryphal material (5:7=Wis. 12:13), hymns (1:18; 
2:21; 3:18 -- all indented in Nestle-Aland 26), and a group of 
sayings connected with times of trial and persecution (4:16,17; 
5:9 in p'^^. 2:15 which is paraphrased by Peter without ox i in 
2:20; 3:6,17; 4:19 using In each case a form of the word 
ofyaOoTro (ew) . 


such common phrases as ouk olcSaxe oxt,"^ otdajiey ox l , ** and 

yiv(^aKovx£c, ozi.^ These phrases occur five times in the Epistle 

of James introducing popular religious wisdom sayings known to 

the early church.^ 

1:3 {yiu6o-KOh'X£c,OT.i) "The testing of faith works ■ 

endurance . " 
3:1 {elsoxec, oxi) "The teacher will be judged with greater 

strictness . " 
4:4 (ovK OlcSaxe oit) "Friendship with the world is enmity 

with God, " 
5:11 (etdexe, ox i ) "The Lord is compassionate and merciful."^ 
5:20 (vLvwaKexu ori) "Whoever brings back a sinner covers a 

multitude of sins."^ 

When oxi is used alone, it is more doubtful that James is employ-- 
ing preexistent materially although the use of yyuvai with ox i in 
2:20 probably indicates that "faith without works is useless" was 
a well-known proverbial saying in the early church as evidenced 
by the similar expressions with oti in 2:22,24. In two instances 
6x1 is used to preface hypothetical sayings placed in the mouth 
of a hostile interlocutor: 1:13 "I am tempted by God" and 2:19 
"God is one" . 

We cannot speak as confidently where introductory for- 
mulations are omitted since the detection of such source material 

^Rom. 6:16; 1 Cor. 3:16; 5:6; 6:2,3,9,15,16,19; 9:13,24. 

'^Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22,28; 1 Cor. 8:4; 2 Cor. 5:1; 1 
Tim, 1:8; 1 Jn . 3:2; 5:18; otcSaxe OX t in 1 Thess. 5:2; 1 Jn. 3:5, 

^Roffi. 6:6; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:3; cf. Rom. 7:1, 

^Twice a probable saying is referred to without attaching 
the OXL to oTSa: 1:19; 4:17. 

•^Even though the verb ei<5€xe fits grammatically with the 
preceding phrase "the purpose of the Lord", with regard to con- 
tent the addition that "He is compassionate and merciful" is a 
thematic equivalent to this phrase. 

^1 Pet. 4:8 and 1 CI. 49:5 employ this saying with "love" 
as the subject. 

'^A causal usage is likely at 1:10,12,23; 5:8 (cf. NIV) ; 
the explicative use at 1:7; 4:5. Even the causal 6x c can intro- 
duce an OT allusion in Jas . 1:10. 


is always somewhat biased and more in the realm of probability 
than conclusive reality. Yet we can offer a few suggestive com- 
ments for identifying preexistent material. Frequently James 
employs catchwords to weave source material into his writing. 
Two sentences are tied together not by a sequence of logical 
thought but by the presence of similar vocabulary . ^^ Either 
before or after the allusion to preexistent material the author 
repeats one or more of the words of this particular saying and 
thus stitches or attaches the saying to the new context. ^^ By 
using this technique we can detect the presence of preexistent 
material in Jas . 1:3 {VTroiiounu / vnoiiour)} 5 (Ae inoiievo i / 
AeirrexaL), 6 (atxeLXW / alxelzu; 6 laKpiuoiievoc, / Siaap luotieuoc,) , 
12 {ne ipaapiov / Tie cpaCope^'oq) , 13b (Tie ipdfijofaat / /recpacet), 20 
(opyny / opyn); 2:13 {Kpiveadai / KpLaic; / Kpiaeuc,); 3:2a 
{TTzaiop.ev / TTxaLei), 5b invp / rrup), 18 ielprivLKti / elpy-iuij; 
KapTTUJu / KapjJOQ} ; 4:10 {xane LvoZc, / zaTreivuQuxe] , and 12a {voiiov 
/ vop.o6ezric, ; Kpixr/Q / Kp Lzric,) • Secondly, wisdom sayings are 

commonly prefaced with the term "blessed^'. Therefore, it is pos- 

^^The use of catchwords was also a technique for 
memorization. Cf. Vincent Taylor, The Gospel ac c o r d ing _, to , S_t_._ 
Mark, 408, " ' " '"" "" '"' "'^"" "* 

•'■•^Therefore it is possible to distinguish between 
catchi'^ords and stitchwords. The stitchword is not within the 
quote itself but is used by the author to stitch the preexistent 
material into his own context. Catchwords are found in the quote 
itself, and often two quotes originally unconnected are placed 
one after the other, attached only formally by similar words. 

^^Difoelius and Greeven, James , 7 detect additional con- 
nections between 1:26 and 27; 5:9 and 12; and 5:13ff, 16ff, and 
19f. However, the connection between 1:26 and 27 is more than 
just a formal catchword; there is also a thematic contrast 
between vain religion and pure religion. The best explanation 
for the interconnection of material in Jas. 5:7-20 is not the use 
of catchwords but rather the grouping together of paraenetlc 
material into a primitive Christian catechism. Cf . ch, 3, sec- 

-4 2- 

sible that the poKapcoc; sayings of 1:12,25; 5:11 are derived from 
preexistent wisdom traditions . ^^ Furthermore, often embedded in a 
rhetorical question is a popular slogan or well-known piece of 
wisdom; James is probably reminding his readers of these familiar 
truths in 2:5; 3:11,12; 4:1,4a. Preexistent materiad is also 
disclosed when a saying fails to fit well into the new context to 
which it is inserted as evidenced by the grammatical construc- 
tion-"4 or by the presence of divergent vocabulary and forms in 
the same context. ^^ Finally, terminology which coincides with the 
vocabulary of a well-known source could reveal the presence of an 
allusion, especially if an identical thematic emphasis is pre- 
sent. We will now determine if these methods of detecting 
preexistent jnaterial are helpful in discovering what sources were 
employed in the writing of James' epistle. 
2.0 Citations of the Old Testament as Scripture 

First we will examine the six quotations'^ which begin 

tion 6.0. 

^^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 42 believes that "most 
of James' discourses are built around, or contain, a central 
macarism or gnomic saying, adopted by the author to his particu- 
lar theme . " 

^^Possibly the dative etdori. in 4:17, the future tense in 
5:3b, the referent to jrpo navxuv in 5:12, and the singular 
a<t£0nCTexai in 5:15. Cf. Gryglewicz, "Jacques et Matthieti," 54. 

■'-^Possibly the switch from middle {aixeZaQai) to active 
(alxetre) and back to middle again {alzeZaOe) In 4:2-3 or the 
presence of dsriacc; in 5:16b when a form of evx.op-ai is used in 
both 5; 16a and 5:17. However, these changes could be merely for 
the sake of variety. 

■'•^Most authors categorize Jas . 2; 11a and b together and 
report the presence of five OT quotations in James (cf. Daniel S, 
G o t a s s , The Old Testament In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Peter , 282; William O.E. 
Oesterley, "The General Epistle of James," The Expositor's Greek 
J-.?. s^t_ament , IV: 389; and Guthrie, MT Introduct ion , 741 who 
includes Jas. 1:11 while omitting Jas. 4:5), Because the intro- 
ductory formula is slightly different, we distinguish six OT 
citations (cf. Richard Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the 


with an introductory formula. In the next section we will turn 

to possible instances where James alludes to the OT or merely 

utilizes similar terminology. 

2,1 Jas. 2:8 Lev. 19:18b LXX Lev. 19:18b MT 

El iieyxoL yopoy xeAetxe 
fiaaLhiKov Kaza xiW ypa(pinu- 

.?~o.H EhimLpy.. 919.M, J-Ae. S-hlIS.LQ.E 9122. ^Sl*^ 

KoAwQ noieZze ' eyu e Cfi l KupcoQ. fj^n''^ ' ajl 

The identification of Jas, 2:8 as a quote from the OT is 
based both on the presence of an introductory formulation and the 
exact representation of the LXX. Although the phrase Kara rr/y 
ypaiprii' is not a typical NT formula, of introduction,^"^ the similar 
expression r) ypaipr} Aeye t is Paul's second most frequently used 
means of referring to the OT.^^ Although there is sufficient 
identical vocabulary to verify a quotation of the OT , it is 
impossible to determine from this reference alone whether James 
regularly follows the LXX, MT , or merely quotes from memory. 

The love command as exemplified in Lev. 19:18 has played 
an important role in both Judaism and Christianity, Hillel 
emphasized that love was the path of entrance to the Torah: "[Be 
Thou] one who loveth [one's fellow-] creatures and bringeth them 
nigh to the Torah" (Aboth 1:12). In Sifra 0,edoshiHi to Lev. 19:18 
Rabbi Akiba labels the command to love one's neighbor a com- 

;i£o§_to_l_i_c Pejriod , 196' 

■^This phrase is used in Dt . 10:4; 1 Chr , 15:5,- 2 Chr . 
30:5; 35:4; 1 Esd. 1:4; 2 Esd. 6:18 (LXX) and the similar wording 
Kaxd xaq ypa^ac, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 although not as an introductory 
formula to an OT citation. 

•^^It is used on six occasions whereas "it is written" is 
employed 29 times. Of. E, Earle Ellis, Paul 's Use of the Old 


prehensive rule of the Torah.19 The commandment of love embedded 
in Lev, 19:18 was thus more than just one of the dictates of the 
law for many Jewish leaders. 20 yet Lev. 19:18 was never specifi- 
cally mentioned as a summary of the Torah in Judaism, although 
the whole of Lev. 19 was pei'ceived as a counterpart of the 
Decalogue. 21 The so-called silver rule, however, was proposed by 
Hillel as a summary to the law. 

On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came 
before Shanuaai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte on con- 
dition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one 
foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the builder's cubit 
which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said 
to him, "What is hateful to you, do not do your neighbor: 
that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary 
thereof; go and learn it, "22 

Therefore love of God and love of neighbor are combined in Jewish 

literature , 23 but only in Christian J*7ritings are Dt . 6:5 and Lev. 

19:18 directly tied together and given comprehensive impor- 

■'•^Cf . StrB I: 357-358 and Moshe Weissman, The Ml dr ash 
Says , 3:261 . 

20Most Jewish rabbis still make all the laws of equal 
value. Cf. F.E. Vokes, "The Ten Commandments in the New Testa- 
ment and in First Century Judaism," SE 5:151. 

^•^Cf, Pieter van der Horst, Th§_Sejy:ence_s_,of _,Pse]^^^^ 
£ll°£YAi-4ss ' 66 ^^"3 Klaus Berger , Die_Jjese_tz_esa,U;Sd^gjj.rig__J^ 80- 

^^b. Shabboth 31a, ed, Epstein, 140. 

2^Rabbi Meir calls the one who occupies himself with the 
study of the law for its own sake both a lover of God and a lover 
of people (Aboth 6:1), Jub. 20 says to "love each his neighbor" 
(v. 2) and to "love the God of heaven" (v. 7), Commands to love 
each other are found in Jub. 7:20; 36:4,8; 1 QS 1:9; CD 6:20. 
Cf. Andreas Nissen, Gott und der Nachste iiL^!ii.4k6Q__Jlid.entum, 
2 30-- 24 4. 


tance.24 james does not directly combine Lev, 19:18 with Dt , 6:5 
to summarize the law and prophets as Jesus had done before him 
(Mk. 12:31,33 par.). Yet it is clear that in NT times the single 
command to love one's neighbor (Rom, 13:9; Gal. 5:19) was 
estimated to be of such importance that it began to summarize the 
whole law. In calling it a royal law, James meant that it was 
the law of the kingdom. 25 Thus the whole of Christian ethics 
(law) was reflected in the ordinance of love. 

Assuming that James has utilized Lev. 19 in the same man- 
ner as Pseudo-Phocylides , 26 Johnson has recently suggested that 
James engages in an halachic midrash of Lev. 19:12-18. He dis- 
covers parallels to each of the verses in this section except 
Lev. 19:14: Lev, 19:12=Jas. 5:12; 19:13=5:4; 19:15=2:1,9; 
19:16=4:11; 19 : 17b=5 : 20* ; 19:18a=5:9*; 19 ; 18b=2 : 8 . 27 in our view, 
this extensive use of Lev. 19 is not so obvious since thematic 
rather than verbal parallels indicate that James is merely using 
traditional Jev^'ish concepts. However, Johnson's claim that Lev. 
19:15 is alluded to at Jas , 2:9 is correct, since James offers 

2'*in the Jewish Two Ways section of the Epistle of 
Barnabas the commands to love God and neighbor are separated 
(19:2,5) and given no comprehensive status. However, the 
Christian addition to the Two Ways in Did. 1:2b makes love of 
neighbor a second command to love of God whereas the original 
second command is given in Did, 2:2. The Testaments of the 
Twelve Patriarchs connect love of God and neighbor in the same 
context (Ben. 3:1,3) as well as even in the same verse (Iss. 5:2; 
7:6; Dan. 5:3), but this command is never given the comprehensive 
status afforded it in the gospels. 

25cf. below, ch. 3, section 3.2. 

26ps,-~Phoc. lO^Lev. 19:15; 16 = 19:12; 19 = 19:13; 21 = 19:16. 
Here one discovers thematic rather than verbal allusions, 

2"^Luke T. Johnson, "The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter 
of James," JBL 101(1982): 399. The least likely allusions are 
marked by him with asterisks. 


two Biblical examples (2:8-10,11) to demonstrate that just as 
partiality toward one law (loving the neighbor; not committing 
adultery) while neglecting another (not showing partiality; not 
killing) leads to breaking the whole law, so partiality toward 
the rich while neglecting the rights of the poor results in 
transgression. Yet this fact does not undermine James' claim 
that the law of love as summarized in Lev. 19:18 is of prominent 


2.2 Jas. 2:11a Ex. 20:13; Dt , 5:17 LXX Ex. 20:14; Dt . 5:18 MT 
6 yap elnSu- 

Jas, 2:11b Ex. 20:15; Dt , 5:18 LXX Ex. 20:13; Dt . 5:17 MT 
etnev Kai- 

The introductory formulations indicate that James is 
quoting what God said in scripture. Similar formulae citandl can 
be found in Paul's writings: the law said (Rom. 7:7), David says 
(Rom. 4:6-8; 11:9-11), and God said (2 Cor. 6:16). More to the 
point is Paul's use of Aeye t without an expressed subject where 
God or scripture must be the understood author. 28 ^jjg wording 
itself, however, reveals no exact quotation of the OT . In both 
the Hebrew Bible and the LXX if is characteristic to express the 
prohibitions of legal language by the negative with the future 
tense. 29 Paul and Matthew retain this means of expression in 
their quotations of the Decalogue. ^^ On the other hand, James, 
like Mark and Luke, 31 employs the stylistically less Semitic 
idiom of pn with the aorist subjunctive . ^^ James is, therefore, 
not quoting directly from the OT text but from his memory or the 
common usage of his time and place. However, the reversal in 

28roih. 15:10; Gal, 3:16; Eph , 4:8; 5:14. It is probably 
a circumlocution in Jewish style to avoid the name of God (cf. 
Davids, James, 117). 

^^Cf, BDF 362 and Moulton and Turner, Gr_aiBmar, III: 86. 

30Rom, 13:9; Mt . 5:21,27; 19:18. Matthew employs the 
future as an imperative at 5:21,43,48; 6:5; 20:26; 21:3,13; 
27:4,24. Paul in other passages consistently uses pn and the 

3lMk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20. 

3 2cf. Charles F.D. Moule, An .Miom Book of New Test_ament 
Greek, 178-179 where oh and the future as a prohibition is listed 
as a Semitism. 


ordei- from the Hebrew indicates that James was aware of the 
sequence found in the LXX. In most MSS of the LXX the succession 
of commandments in Exodus is adultery, theft, murder and in 
Deuteronomy adultery, murder, theft, 33 while the MT reads murder, 
adultery, theft in both cases. Although the transposition of 
murder and adultery is also found in the Hebraic Nash papyrus, ^4 
the probable explanation for James' order is simply his recollec- 
tion of the LXX text, 35 Since the more Palestinian authors choose 
the order of the MT36 whereas the more Hellenistic writers opt 
for the order of the LXX, 3"? Laws contents that a probable 
provenance can be derived from James' usage: "As the bulk of evi- 

33certaln LXX texts follow the order of the MT at Ex, 20 
{A, F, M, 15, 19, 29, 38, 44, 52, 55, 58, 59, 72, 85, 106, 121, 
131, 134, Armenian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Syro-hexaplar) and Dt. 5 
(A, F, M, 15, 29, 38, 52, 53, 55, 59, 72, 82, 85, 120, 121, 131, 
Bohairic, Old Latin). Cf. Alan E. Brooke and Norman McLean, The 
.OM Testjiment in Greek (Cambridge: Un. Press, 1919 and 1911)^ 
Vol.. 1, pt. 2, p, 2 20 "and Vol. 1, pt . 3, p. 570. 

34pQp 3 photograph and reproduction of the text see Ernst 
Wlxrthwein, Tk§, ISEi. PJ., .tk§ -QM Testament, tr. Erroll F. Rhodes 
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 1979), 132-i33. Because the papyrus was 
acquired in Egypt, its probable provenance is not Palestine. 
Wurthwein (p. 33) explains that "it was not derived from a Bibli- 
cal scroll, but from a liturgical, devotional, or instructional 
collection." If it is not derived from a Hebrew Biblical scroll, 
then the Hellenistic environment could certainly have more easily 
influenced the writing of this papyrus, Cf. F, Crawford Burkitt, 
"The Hebrew Papyrus of the Ten Commandments," J_QR 15(1903): 392- 
408 and S.A. Cook, "A Pre-Massoretlc Biblical Papyrus," Pro- 
£§-.§dinaS of t,he Society of BibJ.J^_al Ar?Ji§.§_S-l2,2Y 25(1903): 34-56. 

3B^ _ Howard Marshall, Comnient^arY 911 Luke, 685 calls it an 
early church catechetical pattern, but if "that were true Matthew 
and Mark would have also followed it. Evidence for the use of 
the LXX is the fact that James only deviates from the LXX on one 
other occasion: Jas . 5:20~Prov. 10:12. Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, 
James , 2 7. 

3®Mt. 5:21-30; 15:19; 19:18; Mk . 7:21-22; 10:19; Did. 
2:2; Jos , Ant. 3:91-92. 

37philo, Dec. 121ff; Sp_ec . Leg;, 3:8; R e r . Div. Her. 173; 
Lk, 18:20; Mk , 7:21-22 D; 10:19 D; Iren.; the Latin version of 
Did, 2:2. For a longer list see David Flusser, "^Do not commit 
adultery', 'Do not murder'," Textus, IV: 220-221. 


dence for variety in order is in Greek literature ... we may 

associate it primarily with the Greek-speaking synogogues . "^8 Yet 

no conclusion can be reached on the basis of a single piece of 


2,3 Jas. 2:23 Gen. 15:6 LXX Gen. 15:6 MT 

enKnpuOri h ypa(br} n Aeyouaa • 

EsJz £ii9y.i££i2 QyjJrf F9.X. ?A9.y.l!3'.Qjl '3p.J_S ^"^ ma^rr M 

Both James' use of a formula citandl and the presence of 
almost exact wording Indicate another quote from the OT . The 
text diverges from the Hebrew by expressing the subject of the 
first verb {"Abraham believed") and by changing the active voice 
of the second verb ("he reckoned it") to the passive ("it was 
reckoned"). James' text differs only slightly from the LXX; he 
stylistically improves the opening con junction"^® and cites the 
name "Abraham" rather than the LXX "Abram" . Since Abram does not 
receive his new name until Gen. 17:5, James's usage of the more 
familiar "Abraham" indicates that a coiBBion tradition had estab- 
lished itself so that the text was no more directly consulted. 
The use of enknp<^dn in the citation formula does not disclose 
that this scripture is being fulfilled in a NT event in the man- 

3^Laws, James, 116. Cf, Harry A. A, Kennedy, "The Hel- 
lenistic Atmosphere o"f the Epistle of James," Ex 8,2(1911): 39, 

~^®The Sesnitlc introductory Ka'i with an adversative usage 
is replaced by the conjunction Si in second position in normal 
Greek usage (cf . Moule, I.di_om Book, 178) . James probably 
employed a standard tradition here since Philo, Mut. Nom. 33:1; 
Gal. 3:6; Rom. 4:3; 1 CI. 10:6; and Justin, Dial. 92 a'lso make 
the exact changes. Two LXX MSS (53, 344) have enLaxevae 3e, Cf. 
John W. Wevers, Genesis , Septuaginta Gottingensls, 1:168, 


ner of Matthew's formula quotations. Rather the context in James 
indicates that Abraham's faith and righteousness were fulfilled 
in his act of sacrificing Isaac. ^'^ 

The final clause, "and he was called a friend of God," 
appears to be a continuation of the scriptural quote but is not 
found in Gen. 15:6, If James has combined texts about Abraham by 
adding a citation from Is. 41:8 or 2 Chr . 20:7, then he is trans- 
mitting the Hebrew text rather than the LXX where we find in each 
case a paraphrase using the verb ayancnj : Jibraham "whom I loved" 
(Is, 41:8) or "who was loved by you" (2 Chr. 20 -.1).^^ However, 
the more likely solution is that "Abraham, my friend" has become 
a popular expression in Judaism as well as the Christian chtirch. 
It is employed by Jewish writers in the intertestamental book of 
Jubilees (19:9; 30:20), at Qumran in CD 3:2, in recension B of 
the Testament of Abraham 13:2 and the Apocalypse of Abraham 10:5, 
and by Philo in Abr, 273 as well as in an especially revealing 
reference (Sobr. 56) where within the Genesis narrative itself 
(Gen. 18:17 LXX) Philo changes the words "Abraham, my son" [xov 
■naLdOQ, pou) to "Abraham, my friend" (xou #lAou iiov) . The con- 
tinuing popularity of this designation in the Christian church is 
revealed in the writings of Clement of Rome (1 CI. 10:1; 17:2), 
Tertullian (Ad.Y- JM- 2:7), and Irenaeus (Adv- I,aer . 4,16,2). As 
Laws' remarks, "James, then, is not strictly quoting Scriptixre 
at this point but echoing a familiar description of Abraham which 

*^Davids, James, 129 against Mayor, James, 104 and Ropes, 
James ,221. 

41'APpaap 6v {^yannoa-, 'Appaap xG ^yannyievi,} . 


ultimately has a Scriptural background . "*2 ^g with the other 
occurrences of an introductory formula, James' appeal to scrip- 
ture gives authoritative backing to his argument, this time 
affirming the working together of faith and works in salvation 
( Jas . 2:14-26). 
2.4 Jas. 4:5 Gen. 6:1-7 ? Num. 11:29 ? 

n doKeixe ox i ksvuc; 

y) ypa(pi) Aeye c • Kal etnev avxu Muvafiq, 

Trpoc; ipdovov v. 2 ixr] ^nKoZc, av poL... 

^EJrJL2^^1. i2 T^^SPMSf "^^ • 3 '5 oxau ^6(j Kvp loq xo /[yeuiia 

o KazffKiaev eu lip.Zu^ v. 3 auvov en'' avzouQ; 

Ex. 20:5 ? eyu) yap e Ip t KUpiOQ 6 Qeog aov , 9e6c, ^r/AwxriQ . . . 

Ps. 41:2 LXX ? bp xponov t'^ yjLoQeJ, r? eAa^oq eTri xag jrriyac, xuv 

vSaxup , ovxuQ~e7TnTo6eZ r? tljux'7 pou Trpot; ere, 6 OeoQ. 

Ps . 83:3 LXX ? i,7Tt.'To£§^ Kal eKAetnet r? (I^uxn P-OU eiQ xaQ auAac; xou 


Up to this point the sayings prefixed with introductory 
formulas have been easily identified as familiar OT quotations. 
However, at Jas. 4:5 we run into a road block. Even though this 
formula citandi is regularly used to refer to the OT,^^ j-,q clear 
allusion can be inferred here. This situation partly stems from 
the uncertain meaning of this "quote" where the subject can be 
either God (RS¥, NASB) or spirit {KJV, hSV , NEB, JB, TEV, NIV) , 
7Tved\ia can refer to the human spirit (KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, TEV, 
NIV) or the Holy Spirit (JB, NASB), and the statement can be 
understood positively (RSV, JB, NASB) or negatively (KJV, ASV, 
NEB, TEV, NIV). If God is the subject, then the spirit (either 
divine or human) is understood in a positive sense: "God jeal- 

■^■^Laws, James, 137. 

^^Paul's second most cominon introductory formula used six 
times. Ellis, Paul's Use of OT, 22, 


ously longs for the spirit (Spirit) that he made to live in us." 
If the spirit is the subject, then the sentence can be understood 
either positively ("The Holy Spirit, He caused to live in us, 
longs jealously") or negatively ("The human spirit, He caused to 
live in us, tends toward envy"), A question is also possible 
(ASV, NIV) : "Does the spirit which He made to dwell in us long 
unto envying?" Whatever the wording, three main possibilities 
for explaining this citation result: 1) a proverbial maxim drawn 
from an OT passage or combination of texts; 44 2) a reference to 
an extra-Biblical source;'*^ and 3) a parenthetic thought so that 
the introductory formula refers to Jas , 4:6 where Prov . 3:34 is 

**Most posit a loose quotation of the OT. Ex. 20:5 is 
referred to by Hort, jJames , 93 and Mayor, James, 140. Sophie S. 
Laws, "Does Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration of James 
iv. 5," NTS 20(1973-74): 214-215 opts for an allusion to Ps , 41:2 
or Ps. 83:3 LXX. Oesterley, "James," 459 claims that Gal. 5:17 
is in James' mind, taut a reference to a NT writing as scripture 
is unlikely within a first century milieu. Others claim that 
James is not referring to any particular passage but to the tenor 
of several OT passages (cf. Knowling, J§mg„§. 99; Mitton, James, 
154; Ross, James and John, 77; Rudolph V.G. Tasker , The General, 
Epistle of_ J_am e s , 91). Still others suggest some unknown version 
of the OT . Joachim Jeremias, "Jac. 4,5: epipothei , " ZNW 
50(1959): 137-138 mentions Theodotion on Job 14:15b or the Frag- 
mentary TarguiB on Gen. 2:2, but these are certainly too cryptic 
to have had widespead significance. Ropes, James, 262 opts for 
an unknown translation of Ex. 20:5. 

^^Many think James is quoting either some unknown 
apocryphal work (cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James, 222; Johann 
Michl , "Der Spruch Jakobusbrief 4,5," Neutestamentllche Aiifsatze, 
173-174; MuBner, Jakobusbrief, 184; Wolfgang Schrage, "Der 
Jakobusbrief," in Horst Balz und Wolfgang Schrage, Die ka_thol^is~ 
.9lL§J} lUtgfs,, 44-45), a proverb of unknown origin (Bo Reicke, The of J,ames_j_ Pet_erj__ and Jude , 46) , or a Christian prophecy 
(cf. Schlatter, Jakobus , 248). Others more specifically argue 
for a citation of the "book of Eldad and Modad (cf. Davids, James / 
162; James Moffatt, The GeneraJ, Epistles, 60; E.M. Sidebottom, 
J§iesj Jude_j_ and 2 Peter, 5 2-53; Spitta, Zur Gesch i_ch_te , II: 121- 
123) y ■ ■ ' 



It is not important for the purpose of ou.r study to dis- 
cuss the source and meaning of this verse in great detail. Let 
us briefly explain our position. The third option listed above 
denies the most natural reading of this passage which would 
expect a quotation after "the scripture says". With regard to 
the second option Dibelius claims that no suitable apocryphal 
citation can be produced. Responding to the specific suggestion 
of the book of Eldad and Modad, Dibelius asks, 

But do we know that this story (i.e. Num. 11:26-30} was 
included in the book which purported to be the prophecy of 
Eldad and Modad, and whether, therefore, there was any dis- 
cussion in this book about jealousy for the possession of the 

SidebottoiB, 43 however, contends that the quote from Eldad and 
Modad in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vis. 2,3,4 "The Lord is nigh 
unto them that turn unto Elm"^^) is identical In substance with 
Jas . 4:8 ("Draw near to God and he will draw near to you") and 
that the giving of greater grace mentioned in Jas, 4:6 is applied 
in Rabba 15:19 and b. Sanhedrin 17a to Eldad and Modad on account 
of their humility,, the very theme of Jas. 4:6-10. This hypoth- 
esis traces back to Spitta^O ^i^q compiled remarkable evidence 

■^^The NIV (1978 ed.) makes 4:5-6a into a question imply- 
ing that 6b is the only scriptural reference, Cf. Mayor, James, 
136 for 19th century proponents of this view. On the other hand, 
John Calvin, Commentaries on th,e Catholic EpistjLes, 331 decides 
that the reference to scripture refers to the preceding verse, 
Jas .4:4. 

'^'^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 223, n. 82. Ropes, James, 
267 states that "it must be pronounced fantastic". 

^^Sidebottom, James_^ .J3M.ji. MM 2 Peter, 52-53. 

^^eyyuc, KvpLOQ xolq en luxeipoiievoLQ, wq yeypaTrxaL ev x5 
'EX6a6 Kal MuiSaT . 

^Ospitta, Zur G^schichte, II: 122-123, We disagree with 
Spitta (p. 120) that Trpoc; (pOoi/oc, belongs to the citation formula 
and neL^ova Se sLdidaiv xopLP to the citation itself. 


pointing to similarities of context, content, and vocabulary 
between Jas . 4 and the proposed reading of the book of Eldad and 
Modad,^^ First of all, the same motive of humilitY is given for 
the subsequent giving of greater grace, thus establishing the 
same general theme in each case. Secondly, the specific content 
of Jas. 4:5 as well as its context offers significant similar- 
ities. Just as the citation of scripture in Jas, 4:5 mentions 
envy (or jealousy) and "the spirit which God made to dwell in 
us", so the passage about Eldad and Modad in Num. 11:29 refers to 
the envy52 ^hich seized some when Eldad and Modad received the 
spirit. Moreover, Hermas ' quote of the book of Eldad and Modad 
(as cited above by Sidebottom) is similar to the emphasis of Jas. 
4:8a. Furthermore, if we allow the possibility that the cita- 
tions in 1 CI. 23:3-4 entitled "this scripture" and 2 CI. 11:2- 
3^3 called "the prophetic word" also derive from the book of 
Eldad and Modad, 5^ then the theme of double-iriindedness found in 
Jas. 4:8b is integral to both documents. Thirdly, the abundance 
of similar vocabulary is remarkable: ypaipn (1 CI. 23:3; Jas. 
4:5), dtipvxoi 1 CI.: 23:3; Jas. 4:8), xaAainupoL, xaAatnupiQaaTe (1 
01. 23:3; Jas. 4:9), CnAoic;, CnAoute (Num. 11:29; Jas. 4:255), 

"^^The Stichometry of Nicephorus includes Eldad and Modad 
under the title 'apocrypha of the OT ' and assigns its length as 
400 lines. 

^^Num. 11:29 employs cBAoq but this is a close synonym to 
<p96uoc,. Cf. 1 Mac. 8:16; Test, Sim. 4:5; 1 CI. 3:2; 4:7; 5:2. 

53pQj, the wording see ch. 3, n. 323. 

^*This is the proposal of Spitta; Seitz, "Relationship of 
Hermas to James," 138-140; "Afterthoughts," 332-333; and Joseph 
B. Lightfoot, Th e Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1, pt . 2 (New York: 
01ms, 1973) , so". ' ' 

^'^We accept Erasmus' conjecture ifiOoueLxe for (poueuexe so 
that the ^96vov of Jas. 4:5 refers back to the envy and jealousy 
spoken of in Jas. 4 : 2 . Of . ch . 3 , p. 92 . 


aKaxaazaaia (which is employed in the application of the citation 
of the book of Eldad and Modad in 2 CI. 11:4 and is used with 
CnAoQ in Jas. 3:16 and diipuxoQ in Jas . 1:8^®), and as mentioned 
above the expression "greater grace" used in Rabba 15:19, San- 
hedrin 17a, and Jas. 4:6. 

This evidence, of course, assumes that the book of Eldad 
and Modad contained all this material. Yet this is the best 
hypothesis within the limits of our present knowledge since the 
other OT references only relate to one element in the text. Num. 
11:29 has in common with Jas. 4:5 the idea of jealousy but not 
the theme of "greater grace" found in Rabba 15:19 and Sanhedrin 
17a. Ps . 41:2 LXX and 83:3 LXX employ the verb eninoeeus along 
with Jas, 4:5, but there is no mention of envy or jealousy, prob- 
ably the most significant word of Jas. 4:5 as indlcatefl by its 
first place in the word order. Ex. 20:5 speaks of the jealousy 
of God in a positive sense^? whereas Jas. 4:5 more naturally 
refers to the envious longing of the human spirit. ^^ Laws argues 
convincingly for this conclusion: 

In the LXX the verb zeloo, with its cognate noun and adjec- 
tive and the compound verb parazeloo, is virtually a techni- 
cal term for the divine jealousy... By contrast, despite its 
similar range of meanings in regard to human longings, the 
verb epipotheo is never used to translate gnr and is never 
applied to God (except perhaps in the eagle image of Deut . 
xxxii. 11), and the noun phthonos, which does not appear in 
the translation Greek of the LXX, is always used of base 

^^Here the adjective form aKaxaaxaxoc, is employed as in 
Jas . 3:8. 

^'^This is also the case for Ex. 34:14; Dt . 6:15; 32:16, 
19ff; Is. 63:8ff; Zech, 8:2. 

S^If the Holy Spirit were in mind, it would be the only 
reference in the epistle, whereas the human spirit is mentioned 
in Jas. 2:26. Moreover, Herm. , Mand. 3:1-2 speaks of the spirit 
which God made to dwell in this flesh, a spirit which may be cor- 
rupted and return as a lying spirit. 


human ox" devilish emotion {Wisd, ii. 24; vi , 23; 1 Mace, 
viii. 16; 3 Mace, vi , 7). 59 

James might be pointing to Gen. 6:l--7 to show his generation that 
every inclination of the human spirit tends toward evil. Just as 
the context of Jas . 4:5 draws distinctions between what is from 
God and what is only human (3:13-17 wisdom from God vs. earthly 
wisdom; 4:4 friendship with God vs. worldly friendship), so Gen. 
6:1-7 opposes the sons of God yearning for the daughters of this 
world. The train of thought is also similar in each instance;^ 
the human spirit inclines towards friendship with the world, 
desire (envy), and pursuit of adulterous pleasure (Gen. 6:1; Jas. 
4:4), putting itself at enmity X'^ith God's spirit (Gen, 6:3), but 
God responds with extra grace for the humble (Jas. 4:6), This 
would parallel the context immediately following Gen. 6:1-7 where 
Noah, the truly humble man, receives through the flood extra 
grace to overcome the evil Inclinations of this world. The prob- 
lem, however, with any supposed allusion to. Gen. 6:1-7 is the 
lack of any specific reference to envy or jealousy (^Soyoc;) and 
the minimal links in vocabxilary as compared with the proposed 
content of the book of Eldad and Modad. To overcome this limited 
similarity with any scripture, others have postulated a general 
reference to several texts from the OT, but the word ypa4>fi 
normally cites a specific reference. ^0 

S^Laws, Jaines, 177. 

6° Joseph B. Lightfoot, St_^ laills Epistle to the 
Galatians (Andover: Draper, 1981), 261 states that "when ypa^n is 
employed in the singular in the New Testament, it always means a 
particular passage of Scripture." In opposition to Lightfoot see 
the writings mentioned by James Hastings, "Scripture," A Diction- 
S£J£. of, ,ili® U.ihl.§.' sd. 1909. Knowling, James, 99 calls attention 
to 2 Cor. 6:16-18 which he claims uses ypa'^ri in a general sense, 
but in reality one encounters there a series of specific texts. 
Gottlob Schrenk, s.v. ypa(pr] , TDNT, I: 753 traces a two-fold use 


It has been difficixlt for many to accept this solution to 
the problematic text of Jas . 4:5 because of the presupposition 
that a NT author would not designeite extra-canonical literature 
as scripture. However, the citation formula "it is written" 
could refer to literature outside the OT in 1 Cor. 2:9; Jn. 7:38; 
and Eph. 5:14 as evidenced by the fact that Clement of Rome, a 
Christian writer within the first century, designates extra- 
canonical literature as scripture (1 CI. 23:3; 46:2; Cf. 2 Cl, 
11:2). Apparently within the earliest period of Christianity 
more literature v^as designated as scripture than those writings 
which have emerged as our canon. ^^ Yet we hesitate to be dogmatic 
about Jas. 4:5! Since the meaning of this particular text is 
shrouded in a certain degree of doubt, it is better seen as the 
exception than the rule in understanding how James alludes to 
preexistent aiaterial, 
2.5 Jas. 4:6 Prov . 3:34 LXX Prov . 3:34 MT 

S l6 Aeye i 

6 OeoQ yjJ£_£.R§aiJ__oi£ KupioQ ilE.§£D.$Ah'.9J£t. B'3^'?"BS 

3-E.U:JlA'2S.SJ!:S.l. ' S.E5.±.I.3.'ZS.§J-£Lk ' ^ •» ^ ^ - n ^ n 

of ypa4>r} with reference both to particular passages and to scrip- 
ture as a whole. He claims that in the Apostolic Fathers 1 Cl . 
42:5; 2 Cl . 6:8; and Barn. 6:12 refer to the entirety of scrip- 
ture. However, 1 Cl . 42:5 is loosely quoting Is. 60:17 LXX (of. 
Joseph B. Lightfoot, The Ago,stol^i,c Fathers (New York: Olms, 
1973), Vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 129) and Barn. 6:12 is obviously a loose 
citation of the creation account. 2 Cl. 6:8 specifically men- 
tions Ezekiel as the source (a loose quote of Ezek. 14:14,18) 
and, therefore, cannot refer to all scripture in general. There- 
fore, even though a scriptural citation is not always word for 
word, a specific text is still in mind. 

^^Cf. Laws, James, 177. Cf. also below, pp. 68-69. 


The formula citandi Sid Aeye i (Eph. 4:8; 5:14; Heb . 3:7; 
10:5) indicates that the truth just stated (in this case the fact 
that God gives more grace) is substantiated by the Biblical 
utterance to be quoted. One can supply either "scripture" or 
"God" as the subject of Aeye c , but the former^ is more likely 
since God is the subject within the quote itself , Since the 
Hebrew description of God as the one who "scorns the scorners" is 
missing, James appears to be following the LXX. However, here as 
well as in 1 Pet. 5:5; 1 Cl. 30:2; and Ig. , Eph. 5:3 the general 
subject "he" in the Hebrew is specified as ^eoQ rather than with 
the LXX addition KdpioQ. Oort (1885) and Gratz (1892-94) have 
contended that the Hebrew BX is a corruption of Q'^ri^i?,^^ i^^-^^ this 
solution would posit the utilization of the Hebrew which seems 
highly unlikely because of the divergent wording of the texts. 
Laws has suggested that "the tetragrammaton was written in their 
text and variously expressed in quotation, with Kurios sub- 
sequently being standardized in the MSS."63 xhis is possible 
since the tetragrammaton was sometimes employed in this fashion, 
but the complete lack of any LXX MSS of Prov . 3:34 with Qeoc; 
replacing the tetragranimaton argues in favor of an original 
KuptoQ. It is best to assume that this Biblical wisdom sayiiig 
had become a popular quotation resulting in some word variation. 
Apparently, the popular oral form had Seoc, for its subject rather 
than Kup Loq as testified by the wording of James, 1 Peter, 1 Cle- 
ment, and Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians. The probable 

62cf. Ropes, James, 266. 
^^Laws, James, 180. 


explanation for this as Grundmann states is that "KvptoQ is a 
term for Christ and their concern is with God's eschatological 
acts. "64 Having become a popular saying, this verse could be used 
with different emphases r thus James calls attention to the theme 
"grace"; Peter, the word "humble"; and Clement and Ignatius, the 
term "proud" . 
3.0 Suggested Allusions to the Old Testament 

Authors use different criteria to judge the presence of 
quotations and allusions. In some writers the gradation from 
quotatioxi to allusion is so imperceptible that it is impossible 
to draw any certain bifurcation. We will define a citation or 
quotation as a reference to another source containing a formula 
citandi and/or nearly exact verbal affinity with the original 
text. An allusion or reminiscence, on the other hand, is here 
defined as a deliberate reference to another source without the 
use of an introductory formulation and only containing a degree 
of verbal affinity, A parallel (here posited as a third distinct 
category) contains similar terminology and/or content, but no 
certainty of dependence upon preexistent material can be estab- 
lished. We will now turn to the OT references without a scrip- 
tural formula citandi and attempt to determine whether these are 

64walter Grundmann, s.v. xaneivoc^, TDNT, VIII: 19. 


exact quotations, allusions, or merely parallels to the 0T.65 3_j^ 
Jas. l:10b-ll Is, 40:6b-8 LXX^B is, 40:6b-8 MT 

naaa aapt, xoptoc, , 
6t (. Kal naaa do^a av9p6nov 

MS, 9iiL§.P^ K9.£Jl9R MS, ^.H^S'JSt K9.B.lSJi.' 

TTapeXevaexa i . 

'^^avexeiKev yap 6 r^Kioc, 

cxi)v xu Kauawyt 

:£Si-. ,15. .?,?i§oS ci'ixou 


Kal n eurrpejie La xou 

TrpoauTrou auxoO ctTruAexo 

xo de pnpcf xou Oeou ?7fi«y 
peyei eIq xoy aluya. 

^3 3 "Tsn ra;"^ 
Dan T'sn T3r 

13 ',n'7^--|3-f 5 

ouxuQ KOL o jrAouaiOQ eu 
xatQ TTopetaLQ auxou 
|iapay0ncrexat . 

The presence of a deliberate allusion to Is. 40:6-8 is 
substantiated by the almost verbatim duplication of three lines 


P'^e have drawn our list primarily from 

3aniel Gotaas ' 
Epistle to th_e 
P e t e r . 

unpublished dissertation. The Old Testament in th 
MefeneHSjL the Epistle of Jame,s_,_ and the EEi,.st_le of 
However, we have omitted 1 ) Jas . 5:2~Jer. 17:11; Job 13:28 
the Jeremiah reference contains no verbal similarities and 
13:28 refers to a person's life rather than riches, although it 
speaks of a moth-eaten garment similar to James; and 2) Jas. 
5:3=Prov. 1:18 which speaks of murderers storing up evil rather 
than riches. In both instances a saying of Jesus bears a closer 
resemblance. In addition, we will add Is. 5:9 to Gotaas' paral- 
lel, Jas. 5:4=Dt. 24:14-15; Mai. 3:5. For the allusion of Jas, 
2:9 ("But if you show partiality, you commit sin") to Lev, 19:15 
("You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great"), 
see instead pp. 44 and 123, The list in Old Testanient i2uota_tlons 
In ,.t,ll£ IfS-H .Tesi3ia®.S.t , ed. Robert Bratcher, is too sparse. Wil- 
helm Dittmar, Vetus Test amen turn in Novgj_ Die a 1 1 1 e s t amen til chen 
PSjailelSS des Neuen Testaments chooses too many OT allusions for 
each reference in James. C. Smits, Oud-Testament 1 i che C_ita_ten i_n 
ll&i ,lli.?ii§. Testament deals more with parallels of vocabulary than 
with deliberate allusions. 

^Some versions of the LXX (Q, 86, 109, 736, 22, 48, 51, 
46, 456, 403, 538) add with minor changes the following 



words : "^ 
6 Xaoc, . 
Ziegler , 

oxt TTveuna KvpLou envevciep eiq auxo* aXndi^c, xopxoQ 

° e£,tTpau9ri xopxoQ, e^eneae xo aveoc,. 
Isaias , Septuaginta Gottingensis, 14:267. 

Of. Joseph 


from the LXX translation. ^"^ However, James' unique references to 

the scorching heat and the inevitable destruction of the rich 

indicate that James is not quoting the words of Isaiah but only 

alluding to familiar Biblical language. The self-contained 

structure of James' description offers additional support that 

the framework of Is. 40 is not being followed. 

a. oxt WQ aySoQ xopxov napeAeuaexai. 

h. cryetecAsy yap 6 nAtog avp xu Kauauvi 
c. Kal k^ripavep zov xopT^ov 
c. Kal xo Q-ySog auxou ei;eneaeu 
b. Kal f~i evTrpeneta xov npoaQnov avzov anuiAexo' 
a. ouxwQ Kal o nhovaLoc, ep xaTc; nopeiaic, avxov p.apav6riaexai . 

Specifically James omits the phrase "all flesh" and instead 

speaks about the rich. Then after citing one phrase from the 

LXX, he explains why the grass withers. He returns again to the 

LXX for two phrases but then cuts off the end of the LXX version 

inserting the clause "and its beauty perishes'* instead of the LXX 

"but the word of our God abides for ever," In this way James can 

conveniently return to the rich man who also perishes as the 

flower. Thus in developing his own description of destructive 

weather conditions James utilizes the familiar phrases of Is. 

40:6b--8. This Biblicized language is most likely derived firbm 

the LXX text since the phrases omitted by the LXX because of 

parablepsis^S ^y.Q likewise not included by James. The repetition 

^"^ James employs the active (e^iqpauev) in order to be con- 
sistent in his verb formation and adds adxou. The parallels with 
Ps. 102:15-16 LXX are not as close (vs. Davids, Jaines, 77). 

^Sjs. 40:7 and 8 begin in Hebrew with the same four words 
so that the translator's eye slid down to v. 8 as he began to 
inscribe v. 7. Hovjever , the insertion of these words in iQIs^ 
indicates that the parablepsis had already occurred in some 
Hebrew MSS , Therefore this one fact alone is insufficient evi- 
dence to prove the use of the LXX. 


of a unique mistranslation of Is. 40:6, "the flower of grass" 
rather than "the flower of the field" offers further evidence for 
following the LXX.^^ The addition in verse 11, "For the sun 
rises with its scorching heat," is then an addition to explain 
why the plant withers and the blossom falls since- James is 
apparantly ignorant of the reason given in the MT for the plant's 
destruction: because "the breath of the Lord blows upon it,"'^0 

Why does James not begin his reference to Is. 40 with a 
formula cltandi? Although one might argue that James refuses to 
introduce an OT reference as scripture when he interweaves his 
own words into the language of scripture, the addition "and he 
was called God's friend" to Gen. 15:6 at Jas. 2:23 argues against 
this thesis. It is our contention that James omits the formula 
Cltandi when he is not directly appealing to the authority of 
scripture in his arguments. Whenever James quotes the OT with an 
introductory formula, he does so to offer authoritative support 
to his arguments. Since Is. 40:6-8 refers to the destruction of 
all flesh, it would not specifically support James' claim for the 
fading away of only the rich. Therefore James appeals to a com- 
mon occurrence of nature reported in scriptural language rather 
than to the authority of scripture Itself. We disagree with 
Laws' contention that "by couching his threat in the language of 

^^In Ps . 103(102): 15 the same Hebrew is rendered more 
correctly avBoc, xov crypou . 

'^^One might argue for a knowledge of the Hebrew since the 
Greek word Kavai^v is used numerous times in the LXX to mean the 
hot southeast wind, thus similar to the breath of the Lord fo^Tnd 
in the MT. However, because Kavatjv is tied to the sun by the 
preposition "with" (ady), the other meaning of heat is more 
likely, similar to Mt , 20:12; Lk , 12:55; and perhaps Is. 49:10. 


prophecy, James adds the suggestion that It is in some sense 
foreordained ." '^1 Laws assumes that James is appealing to the 
force of scripture in both his OT quotations and allusions . "^2 
This particular example, however, does not substantiate this 
claim since James is only using familiar Biblical language and 
not appealing to scriptural authority. 
3.2 Jas, 3. ■9b Gen. 1:26 LXX Gen, 1:26 MT 

Kol kf auxf5 KaxapwpeQa 

Kot etneu 6 Oioc, btt^ic "iigs's i 

TOUQ at^doMEOuc, no inaaiieu qiJ9_£^nop B7^ n^a3 

Kaz' eLKaua ri\iexepav ^aa'^s^ 

9eov yeyovoxac, 

James appeals to the OT truth that human beings are 
created in the likeness of God to demonstrate the corresponding 
fact that verbal responses (such as blessing and cursing) apply 
not only to one's relationship to God but also to human affairs. 
The word "likeness" is employed Infrequently in the LXX outside 
Gen. 1:26'^3 and is not found elsewhere in the NT. Normally it is 
replaced by eLk^u'^^ when describing the resemblance of humankind 

"^^Laws, James, 64. 

■^2ibid. , 8. 

"^^It is used in contexts unconnected with the resemblance 
of God and human beings at Ps . 57(58) :4; Ezek. 1:10; 8:10 A; 
10:22; Dan. 7:5; 10:16. However, Ezek. 28:12-13 LXX ("Thou art a 
seal of resemblance and crown of beauty. Thou wast in the 
delight of the paradise of God," Th^ Septuagint Version, Greek 
^L§: ElMlA^h' 1016) does refer to humankind's likeness to God and 
thus mi sun del" stands the Hebrew (cf. Walter Zlmmerli, Ezek,lej., 
2:81). Since the Hebrew of v, 13 speaks of "Eden, the garden of 
God" and "the day that you were created" recalling the details of 
Gen. 1, the LXX took the liberty to insert a reference to "like- 
ness" , 

"^^Gen. 5:1 LXX; 9:6; Sir. 17:3; Wis. 2:23; Test. Naph. 
2:6; Philo, Pug. 68; Mut . Mom . 31; 1 Cor. 11:7; 2 Cor. 3:18; cf. 
Aboth 3: 14. 


to God or is employed with cIkuv as the second term within a 
series. '^5 It is difficult to determine whether James chose this 
word for a specified purpose, Irenaeus*^® distinguished between 
the image of God in which all humanity participates (since reason 
and conscience are universal phenomena) and the likeness of God 
(the potentiality of moral assimilation to divine goodness) which 
only the redeemed inherit. It is doubtful, however, whether such 
a distinction can be read back into the Epistle of James, Laws 
argues that "he deliberately uses the more unusual of the two 
words in Gen, 1:26 to make a specific allusion to that passage (a 
technique he employs in 1:10 and 5:4) and so to add force to his 
argument . ""^"^ If one were to accept this proposition, then James 
would be offering a two-fold argument against the person who uses 
the tongue to bless God and curse people: 1) inconsistency; and 
2) acting against the word of God. In our opinion. Laws is 
assuming too much when she proposes that James is appealing to 
the authority of scripture by using the special word "likeness". 
Since this term is used as a substitute for "image" in rabbln.ic 
literature , -8 these words were at least interchangeable in . the 
Jewish community. Here James argues solely on the grounds of 
inconsistency. Blessing God and cursing humans is an incon- 
sistent behavior -- a proposition which every wise, reasonable 
person would recognize. Within this argument James uses the lan- 

■^^Gen. 1:26; Philo, Op. Mund. 69; Conf. Ling. 169; 1 CI 
33:5; Barn. 5:5; 6:12; cf. h~ Megillah 9a. 

"^^Adv. Haer. 5,16,2. Cf. The Anti_-Nicene Fathers, I 

"^"^Laws, James , 155. 

■^^Cf. Sifra on Lev. 19:18 and b. Megillah 28a 


guage of Gen, 1:26, but this is very natural since all paraenetic 
literature employs traditional language which in the case of a 
Jewish-Christian mileau includes the language of the OT . There- 
fore, James is not arguing from the authority of scripture as he 
has done when employing formulae citandi but is only , utilizing 
Biblical language. 

Dt. 24:15 LXX Mai. 3:5 LXX 

3 . 3 Jas. 5 : 4 

Ldov o iliCj;£o<; 

■zdv kpyaxwv xwv a\j.r}0- 

avxu)v xac, x^POQ upSy 

Kal at §_oal xqv 


£Mi?.i. °ii crapaijO 


xou |i.icr0;oy avxov 

. . , Kai ov 
Ka X a§o_ r}a€xai 

Kaxa cjov 
npOQ Kugcoy 

K.a I err i 

xouQ Gnoa_xe2_ovuxaQ 
|j_ia£oy niaOaxov 
" ""is. 5:9 LXX 

OKOuaOrj e (q xa^ '^'^.Hl 

The siiBllarities in terminology and content suggest that 
James was familiar' with the language of Is, 5:9, Dt . 24:14-15, 
and Mai. 3:5. James' title for God, "Lord of Hosts," appears 
four times in Is. 5:7,9,16,28. In both Isaiah and James the Lord 
of Hosts Is listening and will judge the offender. Moreover, the 
cry (Kpdcei) of James' poor is reminiscent of the cry {Kpavyrj} 
heard by the Lord from his vineyard in Is. 5:7. However, the 
parallels are not exact. In James' setting and experience the 
rich have kept back the wages of the poor by fraud; in Isaiah the 
greedy have joined house to house and field to field until there 
is no room for anyone else. In James the day of slaughter will 
end the oppressor's life of luxury; in Isaiah a famine will deso- 
late the large and beautiful homes. Besides divergencies of con- 


tent one should realize that expressions describing the cry of 
the oppressed are common in Israel as demonstrated in the verbal 
similarities of Is. 5:9 and Ps , 17:7 LXX.'^^ James thus employs 
traditional OT language and thought patterns to express his con- 
demnation of the rich. This also applies to Dt . 24:15 and Mai. 
3:5b which like Jas . 5:4 protest against holding back the wages 
of the poor . Here we encounter a common theology of the poor 
rather than a specific allusion to particular OT passages. As 
Dibeliu.s remarks, "Just such motifs from the tradition were natu- 
ral favorites for the expansion of paraenesis by Jewish and 
Christian teachers, "^^ Therefore, it is likely that as James 
pondered a situation where the rich were oppressing their 
workers, his mind wandered back to other contexts where the same 
theme was expressed. As a result James utilizes traditional OT 
language applying it to a new setting. This is further sub- 
stantiated by the fact that the title "Lord of Hosts" had fallen 
into disuse in Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Judaism with only one 
reference in the Mishnah.^^ James' adoption of this terminology 
is therefore most easily explained as a deliberate "Bibllcizing" . 
There is no appeal to the authority of scripture but only a use 
of its language to paint a familiar prophetic picture. 

■^^Ps. 17:7 LXX KG L r^ jcpauy/] p-OU euu3niop auxov 

e LcreAeuo-exat etc; xa 3xa auxou. Cf . 1 En. 47:1; Sir. 21:5. 

S^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 238. 
S^Cf. Laws, James, 202. 

-66b "- 

s3.4 Jas, 5:5 Jer . 12:3 LXX Jer. 12:3 MT8 2 

tepeipaxe tag Kagd^aQ 6e6oKLp.aKaQ Tr)u Ka£6j.av '3*7 njirrai 

vjiuv iiou euauviov aov ' ?in» 

ayyiaov a'uxo-uQ nn^tt'? w^^ apnn 

In Jer. 12 the righteous are complaining to God about the 
prosperity of the wicked (12:1). God, however, sees what Is hap- 
pening (12:3), and the wicked will in return be judged on the day 
of slaughter. In James the righteous person has been cruelly 
killed (5: 6)6"^ by those who live in luxury upon the earth (5:5); 
similarly they will face a day of slaughter. The specific mean- 
ing of this day of slaughter is contested but probably refers in 
both cases to the day of judgment similar to 1 En. 94: 9.^4 Thus 
James is again drawing from familiar Biblical imagery viithout 
alluding to a specific OT passage. 
3.5 Jas. 5:11 Ps. 102:8; 144:8 LXX^S 

ox c nghvo-jrAayxvoQ 8c .uaKpoQupoc; ical ,2.£Ail^^^O'^ * 

eavLv 6 Kugj.05^ 8b o Ky p i oc; , 

^°^ olizxTpijav . 8a gj^KXL£}im/ Kal eAenpwp 

At 5:11 James calls attention to a fact already known by 

his readers (elsexe, ozi). The exact wording in Pss . 102 and 144 

witnesses to the fact that this was an easily memorizable des- 

^^MT: "and trlest my mind towai-d thee. Pull them out 
like sheep for the slaughter, and set them apart for the day of 
slaughter," LXX: "thou hast proved my heart before thee; purify 
them for the day of their slaughter." S_egtuag_in_t_i_ Greek and 
English, 917. 

^^The murder of the righteous man has also become tradi- 
tional language as witnessed by Wis. 2:20 and Prov. 1:11. 

^^"You have ... become ready for the day of slaughter, 
and the day of darkness, and the day of great judgment," Cf. 
also 1 En. 100:7. 

^^In Hebrew these two texts are divergent . 

Ps. 103:8 T^n-aii B-^is n^^ fiJiT narji oinT 

Ps. 145:8 -T9n-'?7^^ B'SJi iTi^ njH ' B^HTi inn 


cription of God,^® The f regency with which the adjective 

OLKTipfjoQ {almost always referring to God) is used in the LXX 

supports the conjecture that this phrase has developed into a 

popular creed. James' use of rro A ucttt Aayxi^oQ rather than the 

traditional term TToAueAeoc, may indicate that James coined the 

term himself, since this is its first occurrence in our knowledge 

of the Greek language. 87 However, this term certainly derives 

from the tie between the physical organ, bowels {crnAayxvoi>) , and 

the expression of various emotions (esp. mercy) already common in 

the OT. The frequent presence of JToAuajrAayxJ^oc; in the Shephei'd 

of Hermas^S indicates that it was gaining popularity even though 

the term used in the Psalms (jroAueAeoQ) is the more familiar 

equivalent , ®9 It is improbable that James is consciously alluding 

to Pss. 102:8; 144:8 LXX since the order is here reversed. 

Instead this description of God's character has become everyday 

language, and James the teacher of wisdom naturally utilizes 

traditional religious sayings, - 

3.6 Jas, 5:20 1 Pet. 4:8 1 CI , 49 : 5 ( 2 CI . 16:4) 

yiywo'Kexw ox^_t '^.I:A- 

6 emaxpeiiiac, aptapxuAot^ ayanr] ayann (Se) 

••• ESlbR'i'^^ KgAu.7rxeL KgAurrxei 

S^Cf. Helmut Koster, s.v. anAayx^ov , TDNT, VII: 557. 

S^cf, Laws, James , 217; Koster, TDNT., VII: 557, n. 55.^ 

^®Mand. 4,3,5; Sim, 5,7,4 and as a noun (TToAuCTTrAayxi^ i-Of) 
in Vis, 1,3,2; 2,2,8; 4,2,3; Hand. 9:2 

^^Neither rroAuo'TrAayxvoc; nor euaTiAayxyoc; are used in the 
LXX; only o licx (p|j(jy , eAenjixuy, jroAueAeoQ, and jiaKpoQupoQ are com- 
mon . 


Jas, 5:20 Prov, 10:12 LXX Prov. 10:12 MT^O 

y LviocTKezoj ox l 

6 en icrxpe4jac, ixixapx^Aou ^^a 

^^^-liZcxoc, eye (pel pcZkoq, a'anq TnlHf] n^Jt& 

nAnOoc, ctjjapvidu . ^^^Trauzac, 6e xout; ''73 ^Mil2b 

fj?7 ^LAoye tKoOyxag m'>^Ws 

Although James has thus far consistently followed the 

LXX, here he omits the newly wcrded second clause, "affection 

covers all that do not love strife," which is accommodated to the 

first phrase "hatred stirs up strife". Therefore the wording 

appears at first glance to be more closely linked with the 

Hebrew. But if James, Peter, and Clement have followed the 

Hebrew, then it is strange that the term "multitude" is con- 

sistejitly employed whereas the Hebrew states, "love covers all 

offenses, "91 J'rom this discrepancy Laws has concluded, 

The probability is that the saying, originally derived from 
Scripture, became proverbial in the Palestinian church, as 
perhaps it was also in Jewish teaching, and so passed into 
Greek-speaking Christianity without the medium of the LXX.^^ 

Others have posited the presence of a saying of Jesus not paral- 
leled in the gospels, ^^ ^^-^-^ this Is impossible to prove. Whatever 
its origin, it became a popular proverbial saying in contexts 
about love (1 Pet. 4:8; 1 CI. 49:5), good deeds (2 CI. 16:4), and 
the I'etrieving of backsliders ( Jas . 5:20). James clearly adapts 

^Qprov. 10:12 MT "Hatred stirs up strife, but love 
covers all offenses." LXX "Hatred stirs up strife, but affection 
covers all that do not love strife." Sep_tuagint_j_ Engdish and 
Greek, 79 7 . 

^■^^3 is nowhere translated by nArjOoQ in the LXX. Gf. 
Edwin Hatch and Henry Redpath, A Concordance to the Septu_agJ._rit 
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), II: 1142-1144".' 

^^Laws, James , 241. 

^-^Cf. R. Hugh Connally, Didascalia Agostolgrjjm (Oxford, 
Clarendon, 1969), Ixxii and Alfred Resch, Agr agh a_^ ' 
^Sj.gIl£§;59Bi§,£ll?. S chr 1 f t f r agme n t e , 311. 


this saying to his context, dropping the theme of love, relating 

forgiveness to the work of covering sin, and placing the verb in 

the future tense. The phrase yLvuCTKexu oxc hints at the presence 

of preexistent material whose familiar terminology James uses to 

develop his exhortations. Here again the formal authority of 

scripture is not appealed to, although its familiar language is 

certainly utilized. 

The Possible Use of Jewish Extra-Biblical Literature 

4.1 Out of all the extra-Biblical literature the Wisdom of 

Jesus Son of Sirach ( Ecclesiast icus ) is the most frequently 

recognized source for literary dependence , ^^ ^3 Ropes explains. 

Many topics referred to by James appear in it; thus, the 
dangers proceeding from the tongue (Eccles. 19:6-12; 20:5-8, 
18-20; 22:27; 28:13-26; 35(32) :7-9), wisdom the gift of God 
(1:1-10), prayer with a divided heart (1:27), pride (10:7- 
18), the uncertainty of life (10:10; 11:16-17), blaming God 
(15:11-20), man as made in God's image and ruling over the 
beasts (17:3f), the eclipse of the sun and the changes of the 
moon (17:31; 27:11). Other passages remind us of the condi- 
tions implied in James; so 4:10, the widow and orphan; 7:35, 
visiting the sick; 13:19f, oppression of the poor by the 
rich; 18:15, on grudging beneficence; 38:9f, prayer and con- 
fession by the sick.^^ 

If we were to catagorize these parallels, they would all fall 

within the rubric, parallels of content alone. 9® There is only 

one parallel where both content and terminology are somewhat 

similar . 

^"^The Wisdom of Solomon usually takes second place when 
the Epistle of James and apocryphal literature compared with 
Jas. l:5=Wis, 9:6 and 5:6=2:6-20 being the most important paral- 
lels. See Oesterley, "James," 405-406 for an extended list of 
parallels with both Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. 

^ ^Ropes , James , 19. 

^^Esp. Jas. " 1: 5 = Sir. 1:3,26; 1:13=15:11-20; 2:1=35:13; 
3:2=14:1; 3:6=28:22-23; 3:10=5:13; 5:3=29:10; 5:4=4:6; 5:11=2:11; 


Jas. 1:19 Sir. 5:11 

^axu si. noQ audpunoc, ytyou 

iSX^-S. et-Q "CO cxKovaai, 1SX£S, ^^ OKpoaaei aov 

(3pa.6dq etc, x6 KaAncrat, Kal kv iiaKpoevyiiq ipOeyyov 

gpadsjQ etc, opyrw' anoKpicrip . 

The verbal similarities are so minimal that this parallel can in 

no way be classified as a deliberate allusion. The best solution 

to these agreements is that given by Dibelius: 

In. paraenesis, ideas from Wisdom literature are often trans- 
mitted in prose form. Therefore, one who stood within the 
paraenetic tradition was also at home in the thought-world of 
Wisdom literature , 9"^ 

Thus the contexts of Sir. 5 and Jas , 1:19 both develop tradi- 
tional wisdom about hearing and speaking. 

4.2 In our opinion, the parallels with the pseudepigraphal 
book, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, should receive 
more scholarly attention than the parallels with Slrach since 
both parallels of terirtinology and content exist. Therefore, we 
will list the most significant of these parallels and briefly 
state their relationship to the Epistle of James. ^^ pi^st of all, 
in both writings endurance during temptation makes one approved 

^'^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 27. 

^^Cf. R.H. Charles, The Testaments of. the Twelve Patri- 
archs, xc for parallels between the Epistle of j"ames 'and "the 
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 


before God and results in numerous good things. 

Jas. 1:2-3 Test, Jos, 2:799 

Tr£j-£>aa|j^_t_<^ nep nreanxe noLKiKoic, kv dcKO ZL£.kl2Q2E£LiS 

* • • '^^ doKL]j toi/ vixwu T^Q TTiaxeuQ tSoKiiiov p.e anede LB,e , Kal ev 

naaiv avzoZc, ep.aKpo6uiiriaa- 
. . . Kal TToAAor ayaedc dcdwaii/ 
Kaxepya^etac u.2L2li2Jdi2^ • n EZLSHSO. ■ 

However, the different contexts witness against any direct 
dependence upon the Testaraent of Joseph since the ten temptations 
faced by Joseph are surely not in the mind of James. Rather 
traditional language about the patient endurance of suffering is 
being employed. ^^^ 

Similarly, both documents develop the reciprocal rela- 
tionship between the compassion shown to others and the mercy 
returned by the Lord. 

Jas. 2:13 Test. Zeb. 8:3l01 

h yap KpLaic, aveheoc, oaov yap avOpuTroQ anXayxv t'Cexai 

eiQ xov TiAncrtoy, 
xS p.}) TTOificravx L eAeoc; • xoaouxoi/' KupiOQ etc, ai}x6i> . 

Here, however, the wording is too divergent to posit any direct 

relationship . 

^^Marinus de Jonge , H.W. Hollander, H.J. de Jonge, and 
Th. Korteweg, The Testainent_s o_f the Twe lve Patriarchs : A Critical 
Edition of the Greek Text, 146. Charles' translation: "In ten 
temptations He showed me approved, and in all of them I endured; 
for endurance is a mighty charm, and patience giveth many good 
things. " 

^^°Cf, Marinxis de Jonge and H.W. Hollander, The Tes^ta- 
.SJMlis .Sl. ill^ Twelve PaJ:rJ.^arcJis_|_ A £o mment_a ry , 363. 

^'^"^de Jonge, Testaments: Critica l Edition, 98, All wit- 
nesses except b, g, 1, d, (m) omit this verse. However, de Jonge 
and Hollander, Testaiiientsj_ Commentary, 254 strongly favor the 
longer text as original. Charles' translation: "For in the 
degree in which a man hath compassion upon his neighbors, in the 
same degree hath the Lord also upon him." Cf, also Test. Zeb. 


The evil practice of uttering blessings and curses at the 

same time is condemned by both authors. Both warn against a 

split personality with James speaking against double-mindedness 

(1:8; 4:8) and the Test. Ben. 6:6 against double sight and double 

hearing. Both contend that a good person should not. have two 

types of tongues or promote poverty and wealth (Test. Ben. 6:5). 

The Test. Ben. 6:1 contrasts the spirit of Beliar with the angel 

of peace similar to the manner in which Jas . 3:15-17 contrasts a 

peaceable wisdom from above with an earthly devilish wisdom. 

Jas. 3:9 Test. Ben. 6:5^02 

h ayaOr] Siavoia 
kv auxp/ (n YAwgga) ouk exe t <5uo y^Mogs^c, , 

euAoYoupey toy Kuptoy jcal Txaxepa sAM^'^^'^ 

Kal kv autp Kaxapupega xoxxz, avBpii-noDc, koI KaTa£ac; 

Because of these similarities we can be certain that similar 

presuppositions are at work in both documents, ^^-^ i^^^ ^^le lack of 

identical terminology forbids us to affirm a relationship of 

dependence of one document upon the other. 

The promise that the devil i-^ill certainly flee is taught 

in both James and the Testament of Naphtali. 

^O^Dg jonge, Testaments: Critical Edition, 172. Charles' 
translation: "The good mind hath two tongues, of blessing and 
cursing, of contumely and of honour, of sorrow and of joy, of 
quietness and of confusion, of hypocrisy and of truth, [of 
poverty and of wealth];" 

lO^De Jonge and Hollander, Testaments : Commentary, 338- 
341 show that these conceptions run throughout the Testaments. 
Of. Ps. 61:5 LXX and its quotation in 1 CI. 15:3. 


Jas. 4: 7b Test, Naph. 8 :4b 1^4 

\ i 

auxiaxiTze 3e xu 6iaBoXu Kai o 6 laBoKoc, 

However, the condition for the flight of the devil is different 
In each case. In the Testament of Naphtall one must work that 
v?hich is good, v^Jhile in James one must submit to God and resist 
the devil. 

Finally, in both James and the Testament of Dan we 
encounter a call to dx-aw near to God directly preceded by a warn- 
ing calling attention to the evil powers of the devil. 

Jas. 4:7b-8a Test. Dan 6 : lb-2 105 

avxiazrixe Se Kai Tipoaexexe eauzotc, 

xS 6 LafBoAu ano xov aazava 

Kai (pev^exat atp' vp.(ou , Kai xuv TTveupaxwy auxou. 

KGL x5 ayyeAcJ 
zS rrapaixoviievia upac * 
Kai eyyiec up. ty. 

However, the contrast between God and Satan is a common one, and 

the Testament of Dan's interest in angels is not present in the 

Epistle of James. 

Admitting the similarities between these two documents, 

one must confess that noticeable differences prohibit us from 

-'■^'^De Jonge , Testaments : Ci\it_i_5.§i,i l^J._tion, 122. Charles' 
translation: "If ye work that which is good, my children, both 
men and angels shall bless you; and God shall be glorified among 
the Gentiles through you, and the devil shall flee from you, and 
the wild beasts shall fear you, and the Lord shall love you, [and 
the angels shall cleave to you] . " 

l^°De Jonge, Tes tamenjt §_:_ ££,iii£Ml. l.£lA£A.9,Ii <■ 109. 
'Eyyccraxe is supported byg, d, e, f, c, h, i, j and found in 
Robert H. Charles, The Greek Ve regions of t_he Te^st_aments of^ the 
IMSA'H.S. ?3.^I..i3.I.£.US. ' Charles' translation: "And now, fear the 
Lord, my children, and beware of Satan and his spirits. Draw 
near unto God and unto the angel that intercedeth for you, for he 
is a mediator between God and man." 


categorizing these as deliberate allusions. The similarities 
stem more from the common subject matter found In paraenetlc lit- 
erature (temptations instigated by the devil, endurance, mercy 
and judgment, the tongue) than from literary dependence. More- 
over, the employment of traditional language explains, all the 
verbal similarities. As Ropes comments, "These ideas and phrases 
were a part of the ever-repeated material of Jewish sermons. "^^^ 
Finally, so many questions remain about the date and the Jewish- 
Christian character of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 
that it is difficult to draw any certain conclusions about 
literary dependence . 1^7 ^g with James' allusions to the OT , here 
too we find that traditional language and common subject matter 
provide the solution to the question of the nature of possible 
parallels. The greater quantity and better quality of the OT 
allusions probably stems from a more frequent reading and even 
memorization of the OT , whereas there is insufficient evidence to 
claim that James is directly dependent upon apocryphal and 
pseudepigraphal literature. 
5.0 Conclusions 

It has become evident throughout our discussion that 
James utilized the LXX. He follows the LXX over against the MT 

l^^Ropes, James, 21. 

■^O'^De sTonge and Hollander, Testaments .- Commentary, 83-84 
argue in favor of a second century Christian document. On the 
other hand, James H. Char les wort h , The 01,d Tesjtament 
£SSii^ep;_ig;rajgha and the New Testament, 39 envisions "riot a 
Christian composition, but a Christian redaction of earlier 
Jewish testaments", and H.C. Kee, OT Ps_eud., I: 778 categorizes 
it as a Jewish document with ten or twelve Christian interpola- 
tions. In our opinion, the additions are Christological and not 
ethical: Sim. 6:5; 7:1-2; Levi 4:4; 8:5; 10:2-3; 14:2; 18:7; Zeb . 
9:8; Ash. 7:3; Dan. 5:13; Maph . 8:3; Jos. 19:11-12; Ben. 3:8; 


at l:10b--ll (the omission of Is. 40:7 and the expression "flower 
of grass"), 2:11 (the order of the commandments), 2:23 (the pas- 
sive verb), and 4:6 (the description of God has changed). Only 
at Jas. 5:20 (with Prov. 10:12) does the MT wording appear 
closer, but even here the better explanation proves, to be an 
allusion to popular phraseology as evidenced by the common occur- 
rence of the saying in James, Peter, and Clement. The dif- 
ferences with the LXX (2:11 aorlst subjunctive, not future 
indicative; 2:23 Abraham, not Abram and the addition of "Abraham, 
a friend of God"; 4:6 9e6q, not JcupcoQ; and 5:20 several dif- 
ferences) can best be explained by the phenomena of quoting from 
memory, the employment of popular expressions, and the fitting of 
these sayings into new contexts. James' employment of the LXX is 
not surprising since the first century (esp. Hellenistic) church 
accepted the LXX as their Bible. ^08 

James introduces six quotes with formulae citandi con- 
taining either a form of the word ypa(pfi or a verb of saying with 
scripture or God as the understood subject. In five of these 
occurrences James is quoting the OT , whereas at Jas. 4:5 an 
extra-Biblical writing, the book of Eldad and Modad, is probably 
In the mind of our author. In each case James is appealing to 
the authority of scripture to substantiate his arguments. 
Against favoritism towards the rich Jas. 2:8 appeals to the royal 
law contained in Lev, 19:18; in favor of seeing faith and works 

l^^In Paul 51 of 93 citations are in absolute or virtual 
agreement with the LXX; 22 are at variance with the Hebrew; 4 
follow the Hebrew against the LXX; and 38 times his text diverges 
from both. Ellis, Paul's Use of OT, 12, 


functioning together In justification, Jas . 2:23 appeals to Gen, 
15:6; the inclination of the human spirit towards jealousy (4:5) 
is proven by a reminder of the lesson the people of Israel 
learned from their criticism of Moses' dealing with Eldad and 
Medad; in substantiating the fact that God gives more grace 
(4:6), James quotes Prov. 3:34. Jas, 2:11 does not so obviously 
fit this pattern, yet if the flow of James' argument is rightly 
interpreted, this reference to scripture is also an appeal to its 
authority . ^09 j-t- j^mst be adiBitted, however, that the sharp dis- 
tinction between the canonical OT and other Jewish literature 
drawn by writers in the late second and third centuries AD cannot 
be applied to James, Not only does he probably refer to an apoc- 
ryphal book, but in describing the figures of Abraham, Rahab, 
Job, and Elijah, he employs extra-Biblical traditions . -'•■^*^ James 
freely utilizes contemporary expressions within this author- 
itative quoting of the OT and Jewish literature. Thus, as is the 
case with Paul, James allows himself flexibility when quoting the 
OT . The familiarity of these OT qtiotations and the inexact 
rendering of the text lead us to the conclusion that James quoted 
from memory. 

^'^^James' argument runs like this: to show that the great 
commandment to love one's neighbor is not fulfilled when another 
ordinance (not showing favoritism) is broken, James quotes two of 
the ten commandments explaining that each has the authority of 
scripture (or each is spoken by God) and, therefore, each must be 

110Qf_ Peter H, Davids, "Tradition and Citation in the 
Epistle of James," Scr_i|)tuxe_,„ Tradit_ion^ and Interpretat ion , 113- 
121. Davids (p. 122} concludes that "the freedom with which 
James combines the canonical with the extra-canonical means that 
he apparently had no firm boundary in his mind between the two." 


James also alludes to the OT In several cases. Laws has 
argued that even when James does not utilize a formula citandi, 
he still grounds his arguments with scriptural authority by 
choosing distinctive words and phrases from the OT (1:10, the 
grass withers and the flower fades; 3:9, the likeness of God; 
3:18, fruit of righteousness^ ^^ ; 5:4, ears of the Lord of Hosts). 
We have found her contentions unconvincing. In his allusions to 
the OT James is merely recalling a commonly experienced event of 
nature expressed in scriptural terminology at l:10b-ll, a popular 
wisdom saying at 3:18,^2 ^yj^j traditional Biblical language at 
3:9 and 5:4. Since James' arguments are strong enough already, 
no outside authority is appeciled to. Blessing God and cursing- 
humans (who are made like God) is illogical; there is no need to 
appeal to the additional authority of scripture at Jas . 3:9. 
James' condemnation of the rich at 5:4 is in traditional and 
well-known religious language; it is unnecessary to make a spe- 
cial appeal to a formal outside authority. The clue in indieat™ 
ing when James is appealing to some authority for conclusive sup- 
port to his arguments is not found in the choice of distinctive 
terms or phrases (as Laws maintains) but rather by riieahs of an 
introductory formula prior to an OT quotation. James' particular 
selection of vocabulary is governed more by the moral discourse 

^-^■'■Laws, JaiBes, 166, We have not even recognized Jas. 
3:18 as an OT allusion since there is little evidence to support 
a combination of Prov. 11:30 and 3:7,18 as Laws contends. Its 
poetic structure indicates a popular wisdom saying. Cf. ch. 3, 
section 4.1. 

-l-^^in 3:18 the catchwords (KapTTOc; and elphv-Q with KapTSQv 
and elpnycKr] of 3:17) stitch a widely accepted wisdom saying into 
James ' argument . 


of the church than by his desire to ground his arguments in the 
authority of scripture. Dibelius convincingly points to the 
nature of paraenesis and in particular to its use of traditional 
language as the key to James' choice of vocabulary and subject 
matter. This accounts for the similarities with apocryphal and 
pseudepigraphal literature as well as with the several allusions 
to the OT. 

We now turn to the parallels between the Epistle of James 
and the sayings of Jesus found in the Synoptic traditions. Does 
James quote Jesus to appeal to the authority of the originator of 
the Christian faith as he has done with specific passages from 
the OT by means of introductory formulas? Or does James merely 
allude to Jesus' sayings by means of catchwords, stitching them 
into the flow of his teaching? Or, to posit a third alternative, 
have Jesus' words already become a part of the ethical tradition 
that James draws upon, similar to the manner in which he utilizes 
traditional terminology from parts of the OT? This question 
moves us to the heart of our study. 


Chapter 3 


1.1 Before we investigate the primary parallels between the 
sayings of Jesus and the teaching of James, it is important to 
ask how we should organize this discussion. One could begin with 
the most widely recognized parallel and finish by examining the 
least commonly accepted. However, in order to perceive how each 
saying is woven into an appropriate context, it is clearly advan- 
tageous to follow the flow of the Epistle of James. What then is 
the logical flow of the Epistle of James? Is there a clearly 
identifiable structure? A prominent position states that "the 
entire document lacks continuity in thought."^ Hunter calls the 
epistle "an ethical scrapbook" , explaining that "it is so 
disconnected as it stands, that it is the despair of the 
analyst. "2 one often hears the statement that no structure exists 
outside the minds of the commentators. Following this view the 
epistle exhibits a loose structure consisting of short isolated 
sayings which are sometimes grouped together to form a literary 
paragraph called a tojroQ.'^ Halson discerns 23 isolated aphorisms 

^Dibelius and Greeven, James . 2. 

^Archibald M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament , 96, 
For similar descriptions see James B. Adamson, James: the Man and 
his Message, 75-76. 

"^For an explanation of this term see David G. Bradley, 
"The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Paraenesis," JBL 72(1953): 
238-264. We prefer the term extended paraenetic discourse. 


and 7 (possibly 8) examples of extended paraenetic discourse.'* 
1.2 A second group of interpreters has diligently endeavored 
to identify some intentional progression of thought unifying the 
themes of James. Cadoux exclaims, "It is strange that so many 
writers have found it formless, for it is probably the most 
completely patterned Book in the Bible. "^ He argues that there 
are four primary divisions each containing four subdivisions. The 
first two sections (1:1-27; 2:1-3:18) are analogous in order and 
content, each consisting of an exposition (1:2-12; 2:1-13), a 
warning against a possible mistake (1:13-18; 2:14-26), a 
practical caution as to a person's inward life (1:19-25; 3:1-12), 
and finally, another cautionary statement about one's Godward 
life (1:26-27; 3:13-18). The last two divisions (4:1-5:6; 5:7- 
20) likewise each contain four paragraphs, a series of four 
condemnations followed by four exhortations. More common are 
attempts to identify a progression of themes all introduced in 
chapter 1.® Forbes proposes that James presents his prospective 
topics in the ten verses following the opening greeting and then 
in the same order elaborates more fully on these subjects.'^ Thus 
the proper attitude toward the trials of life is introduced in 
1:2 and elaborated in 1:12-27; the testing of faith that produces 

'^Halson, "James: ^Christian Wisdom?'" SE 4:309, n, 5, For 
our evaluation of the number of aphorisms and paraenetic 
paragraphs see the outlines introducing each major division of 
ch. 3. 

^Cadoux, Thought of James , 6-7. 

^Adamson, James : Man and Message , 79 states that "every 
principle and theme in the rest of the Epistle of James is 
repeated, expanded, or derived from 1:2-18 on the Christian mind 
... and 1:19-27 on Christian conduct." 

'^P.B.R. Forbes, "The Structure of the Epistle of James," 
EQ 44(1972) : 147. 


perfect works is briefly touched upon in 1:3-4 and worked out 
more fully in chapter 2; the wisdom that God imparts to those who 
ask is discussed in 1:5-8 and chapters 3-4; finally a contrast 
between rich and poor with an emphasis on divine judgment is 
developed in 1:9-11 and chapter 5, Francis and Davids^ likewise 
accept a progression of themes but discover a chiastic structure 
preceded by a double introduction of themes, thus the reverse 
order of the outline advocated by Forbes. 

Testing Produces Joy 

Testing Produces 
Blessedness ( 1:12-18) 

Wisdom through 
Prayer (1:5-8) 

Pure Speech Contains 
No Anger (1:19-21) 

Poverty Excels 
Wealth (1:9-11) 

Obedience Requires 
Generosity(l : 22-25) 

The Excellence of 

Poverty and 

Generosity (2:1-26) 

Testing through 
Wealth (4:13-5:6) 

Endurance in the 
Test (5:7-8) 

The Demand for Pure 
Speech (3:1-4:12) 

Pure Speech in the 
Test (5:9) 

Call for Poor to be 
steadfast (5:10-11) 

A more arguable outline is developed by Hartin^ who sees the 
major themes of Jas . 1 (rich and poor 1:9-11, hearers and doers 

^Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James , 29,25 builds upon 
the results of Fred 0, Francis, "The Form and Function of the 
Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John," ZNW 
61(1970): 110. Davids is misleading when he contends that 1:22- 
25 speaks about generosity and 2:1-26 about the excellence of 
poverty and generosity (rather than partiality and faith / 
works). Likewise 4:13-5:6 should fall under category c since 
Jas. 1:9-11; 2:1-7; and 5:1-6 all deal with wealth. Finally, the 
grouping together of 3:1-4:12 overlooks James more nuanced 
division of paragraphs on the tongue, wisdom, and a humble 

^Martin J. Hart in, James and the Q Sayings of Jesus, 29. 


of the word 1:22-25, speech 1:26-27, and wisdom 1:5-8) developed 

in the body of the epistle in a chiastic f oremat , 

A) Rich and poor 2:1-13 

B Doers of the word 2:13-26 





Bl) Doers of the word 4:13-17 
Al) Rich and poor 5:1-6 

C) Speech 3 

D) Wisdom 3 
Dl) Wisdom 4 
CI) Speech 4 

The problem here, however, is that this outline separates 
sections Bl and Al which are tied together by James with the 
introduction aye. vdu ol and the theme of wealth as well as 
assigning a major status to the transitional paragraph 4:11-12. 
In our estimation James does indeed use chapter 1 to foreshadow 
certain themes he will later discuss, but the contrasting results 
exhibited above indicate that the order of contents in Jas . 1 in 
no way structures the rest of the book. 

1.3 Others have identified one central organizing theme in 
James. Rustler asserts that James pursues the problem of the 
social tensions between rich and poor "in a we 11 -organized 
manner, thought through to the smallest detail". 1*^ Thiessen 
outlines the entire epistle under the theme "becoming a perfect 
raan";^^ Hiebert calls attention to the "tests of a living 

^*^M. Rustler, Thema und Disposition des Jakobusbrief es: 
Eine f ormkritische Studie , 84 quoted in Dibelius and Greeven, 
James , 6, n. 22. His outline based on the theme rich and poor is 
as follows: 1) fundamental dogmatics 1:2-27; 2) practical ethics 
2:1-3:12; 3) eschatology 3:13-5:20, each with three subdivisions: 
thesis (1:2-11; 2:1-13; 3:13-4:10), antithesis (1:12-18; 2:14-26; 
4:11-5:6), and synthesis (1:14-27; 3:1-12; 5:7-20). 

^^See Henry C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New 
Testament , 278-279 for the various subdivisions. The word 
"perfect", however, is not used after Jas. 3:1. 


faith";i2 Gromacki arranges the contents under the two motifs of 
the nature of true faith and true wisdom. ^"^ But even someone like 
Hiebert who advocates a well organized, intricately knit-together 
composition of James concedes that "the epistle obviously does 
not set forth a clear structural plan heralding the logical 
organization of its contents. "^^ No one major theme reoccurs in 
each section; rather we encounter a series of themes such as 
endurance of trials, partiality, faith and works, the tongue, 
wisdom, riches, and prayer which are impossible to categorize 
under one rubric. The particular theme chosen by the various 
commentators can only be assigned to subjective bias. 
1.4 A small fourth group of exegetes proposes that the 
structure of James is patterned after a previous document or 
group of preexistent sayings. Johnson believes that James 
engages in a halachic midrash on Lev. 19 : 1 2-18 ; ■'• ^ Gertner 
attempts to prove that James is a midrash on Psalm 12;^^ and, as 
we saw earlier, Meyer argues for an allegory based upon the 
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. ^'^ Other exegetes base the 
structure of James upon its use of preexistent sayings, 
especially those derived from the Jesus-tradition. Shepherd 
discerns a series of eight homiletic-didactic discourses which 

^^Hiebert, James , 7. Faith, however, is the central 
topic only in Jas. 2:14-26. 

^ ^Robert G. Gromacki, New Testamen t Sur vey, 341. 

l^Hiebert, James , 41. 

^^Johnson, "Leviticus 19 in James," 401. 

l^M. Gertner, "Midrashim in the New Testament," JSS 
7(1962): 283-290. Cf . Anthony Hanson, "Seminar Report," NTS 
25(1978-79): 526. 

^"^Cf. above, pp. 29-30. 


are built around or contain a central raacarism or gnomic saying 
adapted by the author to his particular theme. ^^ 

Topic Saying 

1. Endurance of Trials (1:2-18) 1:12 

2. Hearing and Doing (1:19-27) 1:25 

3. Respect of Persons (2:1-13) 2:5 or 2:10 

4. Faith and Works (2:14-26) comparable to 2:20 and 2:26 

5. Evil-speaking (3:1-12) 3:2 

6. Factiousness (3:13-4:10) 4:4 
(Recapitulation 4:11-12) 

7. Two Woes: On the Rich (4:13-5:6) 4:17 

8. Patience (5:7-18) 5:11 
(Summary 5:19-20) 

Woven around this central macarism Shepherd detects significant 

parallels to the sayings of Jesus, especially as found in the 

Gospel of Matthew. Almost each section is controlled by the 

teaching of Jesus: thus he reports about section 1: "the section 

might also be taken as a commentary upon the petition of the 

Lord's prayer, 'Lead us not into temptation'"; and section 2: 

"Underneath this whole section in James, however, is the gospel 

principle found in two Q sayings of Jesus: Matt. 7:21=Luke 6:46, 

and Matt. 7:26=Luke 6:59;" and section 5: "the whole diatribe of 

James on the tongue may be considered as a homiletic illustration 

of the saying of Jesus in Matt. 12:36."^^ Michaels likewise 

perceives that "the substance of his letter is a series of 

sermonic expansions of certain sayings of Jesus, "^0 but he 

discovers four brief homilies merged into one letter: 

1. on temptation (1:2-18) based upon the sixth petition of the 
Lord's prayer; 

^^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 41-42. 

l^Ibid. , 44-46. 

20j. Ramsey Michaels, "James — The Royal Law," The New 
Testament Speaks , 329, Michaels says this feature makes James 
unique among the NT epistles. 


2. on the law of love (l:19--2:26) with Lev. 19:18 being 
interpreted by Jesus (Mt. 22:37-40 par,); 

3. on evil speaking (3:1-4:12) based upon Mt . 15:11,17-20; 

4. on endurance (4:13-5:20) based on Mk. 13:13 par. 

Additional support for this approach comes from Davids who states 
that "every section of the Epistle of James appears to have some 
contact with the Jesus-tradition" in such a fashion that the 
gospel material is found in "either the opening argument or the 
summarizing argument in most blocks in James". ^1 This intricate 
connection of dependence between the structure of James and the 
sayings of Jesus appears to be forced. Each division of Michaels 
contains much material that is not based upon the particular 
saying of Jesus which is singled out. Shepherd's outline more 
faithfully captures the movements in James' progression of 
thought, but the positing of one central macarism in each 
discourse definitely seems arbitrary. It is more accurate to 
suggest that James employs a series of gnomic sayings than that 
one prominent saying controls the development of thought in each 
section, Davids' view that sayings of Jesus normally introduce 
or summarize each section assigns material to Jesus which in 
certain cases (cf, 2:13; 3:12,18) has much closer parallels with 
Jewish sources or the everyday wisdom of the Hellenistic world. 
Furthermore, James' important discourse on faith and works (2:14- 
26) and the section denouncing the worldly merchants (4:13-17) 
contain no discernable Jesus-saying, 

1.5 Although some view James as a series of homilies based 
upon specific preexistent logia of Jesus, it is more helpful to 

^■^Peter H, Davids, " Jesus-Paraenesis in the Catholic 
Epistles," paper presented at the SBL conference, Chicago, Dec, 
1984, p. 3, 


distinguish different types of paraenetic literature (sub-genre, 
if you will) within the Epistle of James. The entire epistle has 
been categorized as paraenesis, 22 but this genre can be used for 
various literary purposes. 23 jj^ fact it is precisely these 
subdivisions of genre which mark off the turning points in the 
flow of the Epistle of James. In Jas . 1 we encounter a series of 
sayings loosely tied together by catchwords which can best be 
described as general paraenesis. 24 j^i Jas, 2:1-3:12 the subject 
matter is more ordered and logically developed around, the themes 
of partiality (2:1-13), faith and works (2:14-26), and the tongue 
(3:1-12) so that the style could more appropriately be entitled, 
extended paraenetic discourse. 25 ^he paraenesis of 3:13-4:10 
consists of two disciplinary exhortations not addressed as usual 
to brethren, but rather to the adulteresses (4:4), sinners (4:8), 

22Ferdinard Hahn, "Die chr istologische Begrtindung 
urchristlicher Paranese, ZNW 72 (1981): 89, n. 13. Cf. below, 
ch. 5, section 3.5. 

23cf. Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman 
Antiquity , 23,94-96 who argues against understanding paraenesis 
too narrowly defined as just the stringing together of 
traditional exhortations. Luke T. Johnson, "Friendship with the 
World / Friendship with God: A Study of Discipleship in James," 
Discipleship in the New Testament , 167 contents that paraenesis 
is wrongly identified as a genre and "is better described as a 
mode of ethical teaching which can be fitted to many different 
literary genres" but see John G. Gammie, "Paraenetic Literature: 
Toward the Morphology of a Secondary Genre," Semeia 50(1990): 47- 

24in Jas. 1 several more or less isolated sayings are 
developed into two major paraenetic paragraphs each beginning 
with the address, "my (beloved) brethren" (1:2-15, 19-27) with 
1:16-18 serving as a transitional paragraph specifying the 
kerygmatic presuppositions underlying James' ethical 

^^Davids, James , 23 is correct when he states that only 
the context imagined for such discourse will reveal whether the 
Greek term "diatribe" or the Jewish expression "homily" is more 


and double-minded (4:8), calling the community back to the life- 
style of the wise (3:13-18) and a behavior pattern not given to 
quarrels (4:1-10).26 j^e paraenesis of the following section, 
4:13-5:6, consists of two prophetic denunciations against the 
worldly-minded merchants (4:13-17) and the oppressive rich (5:1- 
6) , each beginning with the same formula aye vuv. Finally, in 
5:7-20 there are four loosely connected sections^"? of general 
paraenesis which are grouped together as a primitive church order 
on the topics of eschatology, oaths, healing, confession of sins, 
prayer, and backsliding. Thus the major divisions in the Epistle 
of James could be described as sub-genre of paraenesis, the 
movement being from general paraenesis, to extended discourse, to 
disciplinary exhortations, to prophetic denunciations, and 
finally to general paraenesis constructed into a primitive church 
order. Most of the sections begin with the address, "my 
(beloved) brethren"; this introduction is omitted when a 
disciplinary exhortation (3:13-4:10) or a prophetic denunciation 
(4:13-5:6) is employed. These various paraenetic sections are 
connected with isolated traditional wisdom sayings which are 
interspersed between the sections to serve as transitions (1:26- 
27; 2:13; 3:11-12,18; 4:11-12; 4:17; 5:6b). 28 Thus there is no 

2^Hoppe, Hintergrund des Jakobusbriefes , 10 contends that 
4:1-12 should be separated from 3:13-18 and be categorized as the 
third diatribe of James. Yet these two series of exhortations 
are organized similarly. Cf. ch. 3, section 4.0. 

2'^Three sections begin with the address "brethren": 5:7- 
11, 12, 19-20. 5:13 probably omits the address since section two 
(5:12) is so short. The frequency of the address in 5:7-11 (w. 
7,9,10) indicates impassioned speech as in 3:10-12. 

28Mayor, James , cxxxix calls this one of the most marked 
characteristics of the epistle. 


comprehensive structure based upon one particular theme or 
intentional progression of thought, yet the different sections of 
James' work display a strong inner consistency and together 
illustrate various ways in which church leaders exhorted their 
communities , 

Because these different types of paraenetic literature 
reveal the inner structure of the book, it is advantageous to 
arrange the list of synoptic parallels into the following 
divisions : 

1. The Synoptic parallels in the general paraenesis of Jas. 1:2- 

2. The Synoptic parallels in the three paraenetic discourses of 
Jas. 2:1-3:12; 

3. The Synoptic parallels in the disciplinary exhortations of 
Jas. 3: 13-4:10 (12) ; 

4. The Synoptic parallels in the prophetic denunciations of Jas. 

5. The Synoptic parallels in the general paraenesis of Jas. 5:7- 
20 developed into a primitive church order. 

We now turn to the twenty parallels most often enumerated 

by the commentators of the 19th and 20th centuries. With each 

parallel we will evaluate if James is alluding to a saying in the 

Jesus-tradition by investigating the criteria^^ of 1) comparable 

subject matter and context; 2) similar phraseology and form; 3) 

the parallels in other literature; and 4) support from the 

history of interpretation. 

2.0 The Synoptic Parallels in the General Paraenesis of Jas. 1 

^^Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort , " 91-92, n. 39 lists 
four criteria for establishing allusions: 1) content { Inhalt) ; 2) 
selection of vocabulary {Mahl der Vokabel); 3) peculiar terseness 
of expression {eigenartigen Pragnanz des Ausdruckes) and 4) other 
allusions of Jesus' sayings in the same context {sonstigen Jesus- 
anklange im Kontext ) . 


Within this division of the Epistle of James there are 

small paraenetic paragraphs and isolated aphorisms as illustrated 


A. 1:2-15 Major paraenetic paragraph: On Trials, (introduced by 
"my brethren" ) . 

1. 1:2-4 Short paraenetic paragraph: The beneficial results of 

trials . 

a. 1:2 "Catechetical" exhortation about trials (possible 

catchword xoftpeLv / xi^pou] . 

b. 1:3 Reminder of an apostolic teaching: testing produces 

endurance . 

c. 1:4 James' concluding exhortation (connected by stitchword 

VTTOiiouiqv / vnop-ovfi) . reAecoc; is Jamesian vocabulary 
(cf. 1:17,25; 3:2). 

2. 1:5-8 Short paraenetic paragraph: Asking for help in times 

of trial, 

a. 1:5a Exhortation (connected by stitchword Aet.7r6^evot / 

Xeinexai) . ao^La is a theme of James. cf. 3:13-17. 

b. 1:5b Allusion to a saying of Jesus. 

c. 1:6a Popular Christian teaching: pray in faith (catchword 

alzeixu) / alxeixu). 

d. 1:6b Illustration from nature (connected by stitchword 

Slokp LuSiievoc, / 6 LaKpiuoiiei/oc,) . 

e. 1:7-8 James' conclusion (tScc^uxoQ 1:8; 4:8 and csKaxaaxaxoc^ 

1:8; 3:8,16 are Jamesian vocabulary). 

3. 1:9-11 Short paraenetic paragraph: Trials can be related to 


a. 1 

b. 1 

c. 1 

9-lOa Exhortation to the lowly and rich. 
lOb-lla Allusion to the nature imagery of Is. 40:6-7. 
lib James' conclusion (the condemnation of the rich is a 
major theme, cf . 2:1-7; 5:1-6). 

4. 1:12 Aphorism: A blessing on those who endure temptations. 

(possible catchword connections: 1:4,12 vnoiiovri / 
UTTOjJteyei. ; 1:2,12,13 TTetpaCTfiocQ / rreLpacrpov / neipa- 
CofjevoQ; 1:3,12 doKiptov / doKtjaoQ; 1:7,12 Anpufieral / 
Anji4»exac) . 

5. 1:13-15 Short paraenetic paragraph: God does not tempt. 

a. 1:13a Exhortation (connected by stitchword Tretpaopoi/ / 

Trei.p6coiiaL ) . 

b. 1:13b Religious aphorism (connected by catchword Tretpd- 

Cojaat / aneipaaxoc, / Treipd^ec). 

c. 1:14-15 James' concluding explanation (connected by 

stitchword n£(.p6i;ei / neipaKexai) . 

B. 1:16-18 Transitional paragraph: Kerygma rather than paraenetic 
exhortations. (introduced by "my beloved brethren"). 


1. 1:16 Introductory exhortation against being deceived. 

2. 1:17 Teaching about the nature of God (related to 1:13-15). 

3, 1:18 Teaching about the word of salvation (related to 
the following, esp. 1:21-22), 

C. 1:19-27 Major paraenetic paragraph: Doing the word, (intro- 
duced by "my beloved brethren" ) . 

1. 1:19-21 Short paraenetic paragraph: Good and evil character 


a. 1:19 Exhortation about h earing and speaking . 

b. 1:20 Religious aphorism (connected by catchword opyriu / 

opyh) . 

c. 1:21 "Catechetical" exhortation about putting on and put- 

ting off certain character qualities, 

2. 1:22-25 Short paraenetic paragraph: Doers of the word and 

not hearers only. 

a. 1:22 Exhortation about hearing and doing (connected by 

stitchword \6yov / Aoyou). 

b. 1:23-24 Illustration from everyday life. 

c. 1:25 James' concluding explanation. (The law is one of 

James' major emphases. cf. 2:8,13; 4:11-12), 

3. 1:26-27 Short paraenetic paragraph: Vain religion vs. pure 

religion (speaking and doing) . 

a. 1:26 Vain religion (Teaching on the tongue is important to 

James, cf . 3:1-12) . 

b. 1:27 Pure religion. 

Jas. 1 consists of short paragraphs of ethical teaching 
loosely tied together. James begins almost every paragraph with 
an exhortation, then stitches already known material (apostolic 
teaching, sayings of Jesus, OT allusions, illustrations from 
nature etc.) into the flow of his thought, and finally offers his 
own conclusion or explanation. The first half of the chapter 
transmits material related to trials and temptations. In order 
to help the Christian community face the possibility of 
suffering, James advocates endurance, prayer, faith, wisdom, and 
a sure knowledge that God does not tempt human beings. In Jas. 


1:9-11 we have our first hint that the wealthy are involved in 

the distress afflicting the church, a theme further developed in 

2:5-7 and 5:1-6. In the second half of this chapter James is 

particularly concerned that the people of God not be deceived. 

The RSV and NIV translations employ the word "deceived" for three 

different Greek verbs (1:16 TrXavau); 1:22 jrapaAoy t^ojiat ; 1:26 

otTraxofu). In the transitional paragraph 1:16-18 we encounter the 

only example of kerygma in the paraenesis of James. At 1:18 and 

1:21 James speaks about the "word of truth" and "the implanted 

word which is able to save your souls" . Grounded upon this word 

of salvation, the readers are exhorted about hearing and speaking 

(1:19), hearing and doing (1:22-25), and speaking and doing 

(1:26-27). The doing of the perfect law of liberty lies at the 

heart of James' theology of the Christian life. 

2.1 Jas. 1:2 Mt. 5:ll-12a Lk. 6:22-23a 

2b -^-^paKaptot eaxe ^^iiaKapLoi tare 

Qzav TTet-paopocQ o xav oveLdiauaiv u^aQ 5ISH iitCTnauacy v}iac. 

nep LIT ear) x£i ol auOpQTJOL Kal 

TTOLKcAocQ, Kol Siu^iJCTLu oxau a^opiaucTLv v^aq, 

Kai oj/e L<5 (awCTcy 

KOL einuaLv nav nouripou Kal eKpctAwaci' x6 ovofia 

Ka9 ' V]xb}u 4!ev66iieuoL viiuv uc, nouupau euexa 

2a evcKev ejiou. xov vlov xov auGpunov 

naaau 2Cgf£crv ^^XS'-B.^'^^ XOffiTce ev eKCLvr? xp 

hyr^aaaBe, kol ayaAA taa0e , ^ hl^-^poc Kal aKLpxncraxe , 

ort 6 jLiLcredc; ujnGy t<5ou yap 6 iiiadoQ up.iju 

noXvQ ev xotQ ovpavo'i.c,' ttoAuq ev x$ ovpauu' 

In both the gospel references and James we encounter an 

imperative advocating an attitude of joy in difficult situations. 

In addition Eleder contends that the same themes are considered 

in relatively similar progressions of thought: blessed joy, 

persecution or testing (Jas. 1:2; Mt . 5:11), steadfast faith. 

5:12), 30 Regarding vocabulary, Davids contends that the cor 


patience (Jas. 1:3; Mt. 5:11), perfection as a guide to eternal 
joy (Jas, 1:4; Mt. 5:12), a greater heavenly reward (Jas, 1:12; 
Mt, 5:12), and the prophets used as paradigms (Jas. 5:10; Mt . 


use of the root xot(-Pi>i is signif icant^^ and that the designation 
"various trials" is a summary of the more specific examples 
(persecuted, excluded, hated. Insulted) listed in the gospels. 
Evidence for this theory is found in the similar descriptions of 
trials scattered throughout the epistle. Thus, for example, the 
blaspheming of the honorable name (2:7) would be similar to the 
"casting out of your name as evil on account of the Son of man" 
found in the gospels. To verify this identification one must 
prove that James' terra TTetpaapoQ refers to outward afflictions 
similar to the gospels rather than to inward temptations. In 
1:13-15, where James describes being enticed by one's own 
desires, he is obviously referring to temptations, not trials. 
Yet from this usage of Txecpdcu one cannot conclude that 
temptations are already in the mind of James at v, 2, The 
specific connection with endurance (1:3,12) and the context of 
parallel passages in the letters of Paul (Rom. 5:3-5) and Peter 
(1 Pet. 1:6-7) support the conclusion that Jas. 1:1-12 deals with 
trials rather than with temptations. The connection between 
these external trials and internal temptations is such that the 
trials of oppression feed the temptation to conclude that God is 
to blame (1:13), Thus by ne ipaoiiOQ James means the outward 

^'^Eleder, Jacobusbrief und Bergpredig t , 114, 
^•^Davids, "James and Jesus," 10. 


pressures of life (1:1-12) which test the inward character 
tempting people to despair of God's presence and working (1: IS- 
IS). James believes that an attitude of joyf-ul endurance can 
overcome these afflictions and the resulting temptations. 
Exegetes who discern a dominical saying in Jas . 1:2 are thus 
justified in contending that the outward trials are the subject 
matter in both the gospels and James. In addition to parallel 
content, Davids defends the presence of a Jesus-saying by calling 
attention to the amount of overlap with the beatitudes of Jesus 
throughout James' epistle. ^^ 

In arguing for a contrary conclusion we will call 
attention to 1) the differences with the Synoptic traditions,- 2) 
the structuring of material throughout the first chapter of James 
where source material is inserted into the middle of each small 
paraenetic paragraph; 3) the insufficient evidence for positing a 
connection between Jas, 1:2 and the gospel references when 
compared with the superior parallels encountered in a legitimate 
allusion to this Jesus-logion in 1 Pet. 4:13-14; and 4) the 
common NT paraenetic teaching pattern with which Jas. 1:2 can be 
more validly compared. 

The differences between Jas. 1:2 and the Synoptic 
traditions are substantial: 

1) James does not preserve the fiaKdpcoc; form of the saying, 
although he regularly employs it elsewhere (1:12,25; 5:11); 

2) There is no reference to Jesus either as the Son of Man (Lk. ) 
or by the phrase "on ray account" (Mt.). 

^^Ibid. Cf. ch. 4, section 3.2 below. 


3) The eschatological reward is altered in James to an earthly 
reward of patience and wholeness. ^3 

4) Only two words are identical: "joy" (an imperative in the 
gospels and a noun in James) and "when". 

5) The order of the phrases is also reversed so that the 
description of the situation follows the exhortation in James. 

6) Those who have set the highest criteria for recognizing 
sayings of Jesus have unanimously rejected this reference as a 
gospel allusion; it is not found in any author who lists less 
than ten parallels between the teaching of James and the logia of 

Eleder's series of similarities, previously mentioned, 
covers over these differences and misleads the reader to assume a 
greater uniformity than in reality is the case. James and Jesus 
advocate a similar perspective: rejoicing in the midst of 
difficult circumstances, but there the agreement ends. If the 
examples in James are not hypothetical, these "various trials" 
are mostly economic in nature. The rich drag the poor to court 
(2:6), defraud them of their wages (5:4), and even kill the 
righteous man (5:6; 4:2 ?; 2:11). In addition, a religious 
dimension to the oppression is evident in 2:7 where the wealthy 
not only disenfranchise the Christian poor but also blaspheme the 

^^MuBner and Davids view James' concept of perfection at 
1:4 as eschatological but Laws, James, 54 offers a better 
explanation: "to be teleios is to be a complete person, having 
integrity, unlike the divided man of vv. 6-8," James does 
r.ention an eschatological reward in 1:12, but this is a 
completely different saying extracted from other source material, 
sometimes designated as an unknown saying of Jesus. Cf. ch. 7, 
n. 6 . 


name of their Lord Jesus. Therefore the persecution (Mt.)» 
exclusion (Lk.)- hatred (Lk.), and insult (Mt. and LK. ) mentioned 
in the gospels is roughly comparable to the situation in James. 
However, the lack of similar terminology and the recognition that 
the term "various trials" is derived from the ecclesiastical 
paraenetic tradition as evidence in 1 Pet. 1:6 makes it invalid 
to assume that TrotK^AotQ Trecpaapocc; is a summary of the more 
specific kinds of affliction found in Mt . 5:11; Lk. 6:22. Mitton 
has gone too far in asserting that "his injunction here might 
indeed be a summary of these four beatitudes from Luke."34 j^ our 
opinion, it is far more likely that James is repeating a church 
catechetical teaching embedded in the paraenetic tradition. 

In investigating the structure of the first chapter of 
James (cf 2.0), one notices that James regularly begins each 
small paraenetic paragraph with an exhortation (1:2,5,9,13,16,19, 
22) and finishes with his own fitting conclusion or explanation 
( 1 : 4 , 7-8 , lib, 14-15 , 25 ) . Between this material James employs 
previously known teaching material (1:3,6a), religious aphorisms 
(1:13b, 20), illustrations from nature (1:6b) and everyday 
experience (1:23-24), OT language (l:10b-lla), and allusions to 
sayings of Jesus (1:5b). Since James alludes to well-known 
teaching material at 1:3 (ycvuaKovxec oxt), we would not expect 
to discover additional source material such as a dominical saying 
at Jas. 1:2. Instead James begins with his own exhortation as is 
his custom throughout the first chapter. 

^^Mitton, James, 20, 


If we compare both 1 Pet. 4:13-14 and Jas , 1:2 with Mt . 
5:ll-12a; Lk . 6:22-23a, the differences between a legitimate, 
intentional allusion to a saying of Jesus and a mere parallel of 
content becomes obvious. 

1 Pet. 4:13-14 Mt. 5-11--12 

^^sl- 6veLdi.^ea0£ uaKOcptot eaxe oxav oueiS Lcruai.u 

t}L ovoyLccxL XpLCJXOv , ijaKapL OL ,, koI dtw^uacv 

OT (. xo XHQ cSoShQ Kac to tou 6eov Kal einfjaLu nau novrfpou Ka6 ' 

nvevfia e^' Vfjac, avanavezaL . vixuu ipevdojievoi eveKev e iiov . 
■^^crAAa Kado KOtyajyetxe xolq 

xou XpLCTTov nadiniiacjLu xcf cpgxe , x^^P^"^^ 
iva KQL eu xri anoKaKv(i>ei zriQ 

d6$nQ auxou xcfpnte ayaAAi bJU^vo <- • Kal ayahAi acree , ox t. 6 ixioOoq, 

\}]x^v TToAvc, iu xotc ovpavoiQ' 

The striking presence of four exact terms (6ve lSL^u , jiaKOtp toe;, 

xatpui, oryaAAcofw) as well as the parallel expression eu ovonaxL 

Xptaxou = eueKcv ejuou demonstrates the close tie between these 

two passages. The change of order can be accounted for by the 

paraenetic nature of 1 Pet. 4:13f where the imperative is of 

prime importance and is, therefore, placed at the head of the 

sentence (also in Jas. 1:2). The double reference to "glory" in 

1 Pet. 4:13-14 as well as the allusion to Is. 11:2 where the 

Spirit of God rests upon the one who judges the poor with 

righteousness (11:4) parallels the mentioning of the reward in 

heaven promised to the suffering in the gospels. The 

corresponding vocabulary visible in 1 Pet. 4:13-14 is absent in 

Jas. 1:2. Instead the phraseology of Jas. 1:2 is reminiscent of 

1 Pet. 1:6 and Rom. 5:3-5. 


An investigation of these passages^S reveals striking 
similarities of vocabulary as well as the presence of parallel 

Jas. 1:2-4 1 Pet. 1:6-7 Rom. 5:3-5 

Count it all joy, 
when you meet 

various trials, 
for you know that 
the testing 
of your faith 
prod uces endurance . 
And let endurance 

In this you More than that, we 

rejoice (dyaAAcaaQe) , rejoice (Kaux^pe^cr) 

though now for a in our sufferings, 
little while you may 
have to suffer 
vario us trials, 

so that knowing that 

the genuineness suffering 
of your faith . . . 

may redound to praise pro duces endurance , 

and glory and honor and endurance 

have its full effect, at the revelation of produces character, 

that you may be Jesus Christ. and character 

perfect and complete, produces hope, 

lacking in nothing. and hope does not 

disappoint us ... 

The differences between the texts^® indicate that the authors are 
not quoting eachother or any standardized literary source. 
Instead the early church appears to have developed a common 
teaching pattern (probably for catechetical purposes) emphasizing 
the necessity of rejoicing in times of struggle. ^"^ Thus Davids is 
correct when he states, "The best explanation ol both the simi- 
larities and the differences among these passages is that all 
three employ a common traditional form circulating in the early 
church. "2^ When he adds, however, that this form probably stems 
originally from a saying of Jesus, he is making a hypothetical 

"^^For the Greek see Appendix II, pp. 325,330. 

"^^Davids, James , 66 says, "James is verbally closer to 1 
Peter, but his thought is closer to Paul's in that both he and 
Paul value the virtues produced by the trying circumstances 
rather than the test itself." 

■^^In the book of Acts (5:41; 16:25 etc.) joy in the midst 
of trials is the repeated experience of the church. 


Davids, James, 66. 


leap which is unwarranted by the inexact similarities of phrase- 
ology. It is more accurate to conclude that the ethical 
tradition of the church incorporated many of the major themes of 
Jesus' preaching into its paraenesis without taking over any 
specific sayings. 

In his commentary on 1 Peter Selwyn has argued that "the 
thought of rejoicing in suffering for the faith is specifically 
Christian and goes back to our Lord's own teaching. "^9 i Pet. 1:6 
and 4:13-14 as well as Jas . 1:2 trace back according to Selwyn to 
a persecution source which "lies close, verbally as in substance, 
to some of the most authentic verba Christi."^^ Reviewing 
Selwyn 's thesis, Nauck , on the other hand, concludes that the 
sayings about joy in tribulation neither originate with Jesus nor 
demonstrate direct dependence upon the gospel tradition.*-^ 
Instead passages like 1 Pet. 1:6; 4:13f; Jas. 1:2,12; 1 Thess, 
1:6; 2 Thess . 1:4-6; 2 Cor . 8:2; Rom. 5:3-5; Heb. 10:32-36; Acts 
5:41 as well as the gospel references (Mt. 5:11-12 par.) have all 
developed out of an earlier Jewish tradition witnessed in such 
texts as Judith 8:25;'*2 ^^s, 3.5_6.43 ^^^ 2 Bar. 48:48-50; 52:5- 

^^Selwyn, First Peter , 450. 

^°Ibid., 455. 

^^Wolfgang Nauck, "Freude im Leiden," ZNW 46(1955): 

*2"Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, who is putting 
us to the test as he did our forefathers." (euxcfpt-crxnowiaei/ Kupcw 
t5 0e5 nnSy, oq, neipa^ei hp-oiQ KaOa Kal xouq naxepac, riP-uu . ) 

^^"And after being disciplined a little, they will be 
shown great kindness. For God has tried them {eneipacreu) , and 
found them worthy of himself. He has tested {t6oKiiiacrei>) them 
like gold in a furnace..." 


7; 54 : 16" 18'^'* which originated according to Nauck in the 
persecution and suffering of the pious during the Maccabean 
revolt. ^^ Nauck' s list of Jewish texts definitely proves that 
this theme had a prehistory prior to the time of Jesus. Our 
position stands midway between that of Selwyn and Nauck. With 
Selwyn we conclude that James' teaching "goes back to our Lord's" 
while like Nauck we deny any direct dependence upon the gospel 
saying of Mt . 5:11-12 par. Here at the beginning of our search 
for sayings of Jesus within the exhortations of James, it is 
necessary to distinguish between intentional allusions to 
dominical sayings and the transmission of the themes of Jesus' 
preaching within the ethical teaching of the church. This 
ecclesiastical paraenetic tradition drew material from a variety 
of sources including OT wisdom sayings, Jewish religious 
aphorisms, illustrations from nature and everyday life, apostolic 
teaching, and the sayings of Jesus as well as the major themes in 
his preaching. Therefore it should not surprise us to discover 

^■^The dating of 2 (Syriac) Baruch is difficult. Charles 
(APOT II, 480) contends that 2 Bar. 52:6 is dependent upon Jas . 
1:2 or some common source, while this is contested by Nauck, 
"Freude im Leiden," 76, n. 51. Both agree (Charles, 507) that at 
one time all of these passages of Baruch were together, being 
fragments of the same address. Nauck believes they should be 
arranged in an order very similar to the gospel saying: 
2 Bar. 48:49 And I will recount their (the righteous) blessedness 

48:50 ... ye have endured much labour. 

52:6 Rejoice ye in the suffering which ye now suffer... 
52:7 and prepare your souls for the reward... 
In our opinion, 2 Baruch witnesses to common paraenetic teaching 
traditions in Judaism and early Christianity. 

^^Nauck, "Freude ira Leiden," 79, n. 63 does not include 
Is. 35:10; 51:11; 61:7; Ps . 126:5 since they describe rejoicing 
after suffering and not during trials. Hans Conzelmann, s.v. 
XaipiJ, TDNT , IX: 368 agrees that Jas. 1:2 is in the tradition of 
Jewish wisdom. 


both Jewish and Christian parallels to Jas. 1:2. Jesus' 

preaching on this theme certainly supported and reinforced the 

church's adoption of this exhortation, yet there is nothing to 

indicate that Jas, 1:2 is an allusion Mt. 5:11-12 par. When 

James transmits the paraenetic tradition of the early church, he 

indirectly repeats the themes of Jesus' preaching. 

2.2 Jas. 1:4 Mt. 5:48 

h Se unoiiouh epyov xeAecov exe'cw, 

Lva nre xeAeco t ecrecx9e ovu upiecc; ziXe lol 

Kal oAoKAnpot aQ~o~lraxnp viikiu 6~"ovpav ioc, 

tv \irt6e.vL Keino^evoL . xeAetoc; kcrxLv. 

The distinctive feature causing some exegetes to posit an 
allusion to a dominical saying is the use of the common adjective 
xeAe toQ coupled with a form of the verb "to be". Thus both 
Matthew and James perceive perfection as the goal of the 
Christian life. In Matthew the call to perfection is the 
summarizing command of Mt . 5:20-47; James pictures perfection as 
the culmination of a process of endurance stemming from the 
testing of one's faith. 

The problem, however, is that calls to perfection are a 
common phenomena in NT literature (cf. Col. 1:28; Phil. 3:12; 
Heb. 6:1; and 1 Pet. 1:16, a call to holiness based upon God's 
character as in Mt . 5:48 but missing in Jas. 1:4). The similar 
Lva clause in Col. 4:12 ( tva axaQrixe. xeAecoc Kai nenAnpo^opriiiei'Oi. 
k-v TxavzX. OeXriiiaxL xov deov) indicates that moral completeness was 
the goal of many, if not all, of the early church leaders. Like- 
wise in the OT one encounters similar exhortations to perfection 


(Dt. 18:13 "You shall be blameless before the Lord your God"46j 
as well as models (Noah in Gen. 6:9 and Job in Job 1:1) who are 
recognized as having achieved this quality. Closer to NT times 
teAetoQ is an important emphasis for Philo'*'^ and a favorite term 
at Qumran where the Community Rule (IQS) employs the Hebrew 
equivalent some 2 2 times. '^^ The sect even pictured themselves as 
the "perfect of way" (IQS 4:22; IQM 14:7; IQH 1:36). Thus the 
OT, the writings of sectarian Judaism, and the teachings of the 
early church leaders could just as easily have provided the 
background for James' statement as the sayings of the Jesus- 

The theme of perfection, however, can best be explained 
as Jamesian theology since no other NT book uses the adjective 
"perfect" as often as this epistle (5x).'*® In fact, all of the 
major themes of James except wealth are connected with the 
concept of perfection: endurance in trials (1:4), wisdom (1:17 
connected with 3:17), the law (1:25), faith and works (2:22), and 
the tongue (3:1-2). Thus Jas . 1:4 should be assigned to the 
author's own theology rather than to source material as evidenced 
by the fact that James concludes each of the short paraenetic 
paragraphs ( 1 :4 , 7-8 , lib) by repeating a characteristic theme. 

^^xeAecoQ eap euauzLov Kupiov xov 9eov aov found in a 
context about sorcery. 

^^ Gf . Leopold Cohn and Paul Wendland, Phlloni,s 
Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt , 7:766-769. Specifically Spec . 
Leg. 4:140 and Flacc. 15 talk about a perfect person. For Philo 
perfection is both an intellectual road and a moral ideal (cf. 
Paul J. DuPlessis, TEAEIOE : The Idea of Perfectio n in the New 
Testament , 67-68), while James consistently refers the term to 
conduct . 

^^IQS l:8f; 2:2; 3:3; 4:22; 5:24; 8:1,9,18,20,21; 9:2,5, 
6,8,9,19; 11:11,17. 

^^3x in Matthew and 8x in all of Paul's epistles. 


Finally, there is some evidence that Mt . 5:48 is an 

ecclesiastical theme^^ repeated by Matthew rather than a specific 

dominical saying. Manson contends that the Lucan parallel (6:36) 

advocating mercy contains the more original reading since "in the 

Old Testament the epithet 'merciful' is given to God, hardly ever 

to man; and the epithet 'perfect' to man, never to God."^^ Barth 

notes the inappropriateness of this exhortation outside of 

Matthew's gospel, concluding that "if the Matthaean form had 

stood in Q, Luke would have turned a . good conclusion into a worse 

one. "^2 j^ j^g "true that some commentators such as Hill have 

argued that Matthew's version is more original. 

Matthew's teleioi (Aram, seiim) plays on the Aramaic word for 
'salute', 'ask for the peace of (Greek aspazo , Aram, i^iam) , 
and that probably assures the originality of the Matthaean 
version. The Targ. Ps.-Jon. to Lev. 22:28 has the same word 
as Luke ('merciful'), and this may have influenced the Lucan 
variant . ^^ 

Hill's conclusion, however, is very doubtful since Mt . 5:48 is 

more structurally related to Mt , 5:20 than to the idea of 

"greeting" in 5:47, Just as Mt . 5:20 introduces the six 

antitheses by calling for a greater righteousness than the 

scribes and Pharisees, so 5:48 concludes this Matthean section by 

exhorting for perfection. ^^ Since the themes of righteousness and 

^^The ecclesiastical ethical tradition added an emphasis 
upon perfection to the Jewish Two Ways at Did. 1:4; 6:2. 

^^Thomas W. Manson, "The Sayings of Jesus," In H.D.A. 
Major, T.W. Manson, and C.J. Wright, The Mission and Message of 
Jesus , 347. 

^^Gerhard Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," in 
Gtinther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz J. Held, Tradition and 
Interpretation in the Gospel of Matthew , 97, n . 1 . 

^^^DavTd Hill, The Gospel of Matthew , 131, 

^^In 6:1 Matthew begins a new section by repeating the 
exact theme of righteousness. 


perfection are almost identical in content for Matthew, ^^ these 
two concepts provide an envelope technique for the six 
antitheses. Coupled with Matthew's unique emphasis on perfection 
at Mt, 19:21 (not found in Mk, 10:21; Lk. 18:22) and the fact 
that this word is not employed by any other evangelist, we must 
conclude that Matthean redaction is apparent at this point. ^^ 
Since Matthew's grounding of his exhortation in terms of imitatio 
Dei (5:48) and imitatio Christi (19:21) is also missing in James, 
there is no evidence validating Mitton's claim that "indeed the 
reason we meet it here is probably because James knew he had 
behind him the greater authority of his Lord."^'^ The parallels 
with other literature outside the gospels and the discovery of 
unique Jamesian emphases precisely where this term is used 
indicate that James was employing his own vocabulary and 
developing well-known paraenetic themes of both Judaism and 
Christianity. There is a common environment of thought between 
Jas. 1:4 and Mt . 5:48, but no intentional reference to the gospel 
tradition is evident. 
2.3 Jas. 1:5 Mt.7:7 Lk.ll:9 

3 V t 

e L Se XLC, vp-iju AetTrexac xayw vju Aeyw, 

aotpiac,, aixeLxjj ^ alzeZxe alzeZze 

napa ■zov~~6Z6ovxoc, 9eov 

naaLu airhuic, kol 

nh oueidii^ouxoQ ^ 

Kal SoehcrexaL auTU. Kai 6o6ri crexaL v}iZu , koI SodficrexaL uiiZu , 

Sn'cecxe KoT 'Crixeixe Kai 

eupricrexe , evpricrexe , 

Kpovexe Kal Kpouexe Kal 
cri/otyno-exaL v^Zv avotynaexoL viiZw 

^^Cf. Gh. 4, sections 3.5-3.?. 

^®Cf. Robert H, Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on h_is 
Literary and Theological Art , 233. 
^"^wTtton, James, 24. 


In both the gospels and James God's generosity provides 
the surety for answered prayer, James' description of God as 
ofTrAwq can be translated "generously" (Hort, Mitton, Gantinat) or 
"without reserve" (Davids, Dibelius, Mayor, MuBner ) , The former 
exegetes contend that "generously, graciously" is more 
appropriate in contexts about giving while those who prefer 
"unreservedly, without mental reservations" maintain that this 
definition more closely parallels the second description of God, 
"without reproaching" and prepares the reader for the vacillating 
petitioner of Jas . 1:6.^^ Whichever meaning of drrAwQ is accepted, 
a parallel description of God can be discerned in the gospel 
accounts. In Mt . 7:9-11; Lk. 11:11-13 God is depicted as the 
giver of good things (Lk. : the Holy Spirit) through an analogy 
describing what a father does and does not provide for his 
children. Although the fatherhood of God is not mentioned in 
Jas. 1:5, the designation of God as one "who gives to all men 
generously and without reproaching" is certainly descriptive of a 
father's character. Moreover, the fatherhood of God is specified 
in the context (1:17 father of lights) and specifically connected 
with the good things God gives {SSctlc, ayadri instead of the 66\xaxa 
ayaea of Mt. 7:11) . 

In addition to similar content and context, there are 
also close affinities of vocabulary. In both the gospels and 
James the imperative of asking and the surety of receiving are 

^^Harold Riesenfeld, "'ATIAQL: Zu Jak. 1,5," Con. Neot. 
9(1944): 33-41; Dibelius and Greeven James , 78-79; Davids, James, 
73. This definition also captures the original meaning of the 
word otttAwq as "simply". 


expressed in almost the exact wording. ^^ The use of the passive 

form SoencrexaL in each case is especially striking. This 

indicates as MuBner contends®'-* that James is following an already 

coined tradition which in all likelihood goes back to Jesus. 

James' repetition of only one-third of the gospel 

tradition in no way substantiates the claim that James is 

transmitting a common proverb rather than the threefold (asking, 

seeking, knocking) promise of Jesus. This same phenomenon occurs 

in John's gospel where only the first exhortation and promise are 

preserved. Jn. 16:23-24 explains, 

Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the 
Father, he will give it to you in my name. Hitherto you have 
asked nothing in my name; ask, and you will receive, that 
your joy may be full.®-^ 

Outside the canonical gospels there are also several instances 

where this thrice repeated saying is not given in its entirety. 

The Gospel of Thomas 94 cites only the seeking and knocking 

parts, while Thomas 92 and The Account of Thomas the Israelite 

5:3 repeat only the second promise.® 2 Finally, we have evidence 

for the division of the gospel's triplicate tradition in the 

writings of the church fathers of the second and third centuries. 

^^The only difference is that James utilizes a third 
person singular imperative and pronoun instead of the second 
plural form of the gospels. 

®°MuJ3ner, Jakobusbrief , 69. 

®^Jn. 16 :23b, 24b au xl alxrjante xov naxepa eu xw ovopaxL 
liov dwo-CL v}iZv ... alxetxe Kal Anm^ecree . . . . Of. 1 Jn. 3:22 Kal 6 
tav alxwfiet' ka\x&avo\xe.v an' avxov .... 

^^In Thomas 92 the "asking" exhortation is possibly also 
alluded to ("Jesus said, 'Seek and you will find. Yet, what you 
asked Me about in former times and which I did not tell you then, 
now I do desire to tell, but you do not inquire after it.'"). 
Thomas the Israelite 5:3 "And the child was angry and said to him 
(i.e. Joseph, his father): 'It is sufficient for you to seek and 
not to find, and most unwisely have you acted.'" 


The variety in the transmission of Mt . 7:7; Lk . 11:9 is 
especially evident in Clement of Alexandria who never reproduces 
the dominical saying in the exact order of the Synoptics. Most 
frequently Clement alludes to the first^^ qj, second exhortation®^ 
in an isolated fashion. The third command with the promise, 
"Knock and it will be opened to you," is never quoted by itself 
but follows the first exhortation^^ or is repeated with all three 
parts together in the order: seek, knock, ask.®® Thus in well 
over one-third of the instances in which the gospel logion is 
quoted (7 of about 16 times®^) only the first third of the saying 
is mentioned by Clement. These references substantiate the fact 
that individual exhortations (as in Jas. 1:5) were transmitted as 
well as the entire logion in its triplicate form. The context of 
"asking in prayer" explains the omission of the metaphors of 
seeking and knocking in James. Desiring to emphasize only the 
theme of "asking" , James transfers to the closely related subject 
of asking in faith in v. 6. 

If James is intentionally alluding to a saying of Jesus, 
how can the addition of the concept of wisdom be accounted for? 
While the original content of the request in the gospels appears 

®3paed. 3,40,2 ( GCS 12 p. 260, line 3); Strom. 2,116,2 
(GCS 52 p. 176, line 2); 3,57,3 (222, 19) 6,78,1 (470, 13); 
6,101,4 (482, 26); 7,41,3 (GCS 17,2 p. 31, line 13); 7,73,1 (52, 
24) . 

S^Paed. 1,91,3 (GCS 12 p. 143, line 26); Strom . 1,51,4 
(GCS 52 p. 33, line 24); 4,5,3 (250, 11); 5,11,1 (333, 1); 5,96,3 
(389, 14). 

®^Paed. 3,36,3 (GCS 12 p. 257, line 31). 

®® Strom . 5,16,6 ( GCS 52 p. 336, line 15); 8,1,2 (GCS 17,2 
p. 80, line 9); Dives 10:2 (166, 2). 

®^Cf . B ibli a Patristica (Paris: Centre National de la 
Recherche Scientifique, 1975), I: 244,350-351. 


to have been quite general ("good things"), Luke inserts his 

particular emphasis of asking for the Holy Spirit. ^^ Similarly 

James introduces his favorite emphasis of wisdom (3:13-18), 

Clearly the idea of lacking wisdom is tied to James' previous 

material by catchword (1:4 AetTrdjaevot / 1:5 Keinexai) and is, 

therefore, probably a phrase inserted by James to stitch these 

two paragraphs together.^® This transition from perfection (1:2- 

4) to wisdom (1:5) could have been inspired by previous patterns 

in wisdom literature. Wis. 9:6 unites the two concepts, "For 

even if one among the sons of men is perfect, if the wisdom that 

comes from you is lacking, he will count for nothing."^*-* Although 

Spitta^^ contends that James is alluding precisely to this saying 

rather than our gospel references, it is more likely that the 

popularity of this theme (asking for the gift of wisdom in 

prayer^2) accounts for James' transition rather than any specific 

written text. The promise that God would respond positively to 

those who sought wisdom is an often repeated truth: 

Prov. 2:3,5-6a "Yes, if you cry out for insight (eav yap znv 
ao(piav en LKoAecrr) ) and raise your voice for understanding ... 
then you will . . . find the knowledge of God, for the Lord 
gives wisdom." (otc KupcoQ dcdwatv aoipLav) . 

Wis. 6:12,14 "And she (wisdom) is easily ... found by those 
who search for her .... The man who rises early to seek her 

^^Cf. C.S. Rodd, "Spirit or Finger," ExT 72(1960-61): 

^^Davids, James, 71 describes this clause as "an 
editorial technique to join originally separate units, in this 
case a traditional chain-saying and a short piece of 
instruction. " 

'^^K.av yap tlq p xeAecoQ eu ulocQ auOpuintJu , xrjq ano aou 
a-o(pLac, anovanc, elq ouSev KoyLaduaexaL . 

■^^Spitta, Zur Geschichte, II: 159. 

■^^wis. 7:7,15; 8:21; 9:4; Sir. 39:6. 


wlll not have to toil, for he will find her sitting at his 
gates . " 

Thus James reemphasizes an important element in the Jewish wisdom 

tradition and weaves it alongside an allusion to a saying of 

Jesus in a typical paraenetic fashion. 

Dibelius appeals to common sentence structure patterns in 

denying any relationship between Jas . 1:5 and Mt . 7:7; Lk, 11:9. 

He attempts to prove that an imperative (ask) followed by the 

future tense (will give or will be given) is the natural word 

order sequence when talking about asking. Ps . 2:8, for instance, 

says, "Ask from me and I will give to you the nations." In this 

connection Spitta points out that even the form doOncrexaL is used 

in the LXX renderings of Ps . 71:15 and Is. 33:16,'?3 In addition, 

the theme of "asking and receiving in prayer" is not unique to 

Jesus but is frequently utilized in Jewish-Christian didactic 

wisdom as witnessed by another occurrence in James (5:16), two 

more in Sirach (7:10; 33:21), additional examples in the gospels 

(Mk. 11:23-24 par,; Mt . 17:20), and several parallels in Mand. 9 

of the Shepherd of Hermas."^^ In arguing against Dibelius we would 

contend that all the references above except for Mand. 9 lack the 

close similarity of vocabulary, content, and context present 

between Jas. 1:5 and Mt . 7:7; Lk. 11:9. Furthermore, Mand. 9 is 

not an independent parallel but exhibits literary dependence upon 

the Epistle of James. ^^ Therefore, just as the teachings of James 

"^^Against Spitta, there is no reference to asking in Is. 
33:16 and the praying and the receiving of gold are not tied 
together in Ps. 71:15. 

^■^Dibellus and Greeven, James, 79. None of these 
examples are as good parallels as Dibelius implies. 

^^Cf. Appendix II, section 8.3. 


had entered the paraenetic tradition which Hermas transmitted, so 

the sayings of Jesus had already become an integral part of the 

teaching tradition which James utilized. Laws is thus correct 

when she concludes. 

It seems quite possible, then, that James draws on the 
tradition of the teaching of Jesus, but if so it is clear 
that that teaching has been absorbed without differentiation 
into the general stock of ethical instruction. He will have 
drav.;i on it independently of its literary fixity in either 
gospel . . . . ^® 

James does not employ Jesus' words as an authoritative device to 

support his particular emphasis as when he quotes the OT with an 

introductory formulation; instead, he repeats an already 

authoritative paraenetic tradition which had absorbed Jesus' 

words. Therefore, one does not find here support for a 

dependence upon Matthew, Luke, or Q; the specification of 

"wisdom" rather than "good things" (Mt. 7:11) or the "Holy 

Spirit" (Lk. 11:13) indicates an independent testimony to a 

saying of Jesus. A deliberate allusion to Jesus' teaching is 

substantiated by the common wording, similar subject matter, and 

the weight of support from the history of interpretation. In the 

last two centuries this is the third most frequently quoted 

gospel parallel found in the Epistle of James. 

2.4 Since Jas , 4:2c-3 is also frequently quoted as a parallel 

to Mt. 7:7-8; Lk. 11:9, it is logical to include a discussion of 

that text at this point in our presentation. 


Laws, James, 56. 


Jas. 4:2c-3 Mt . 7:7 / Lk. 11:9 

}iaxea6e Kal noAeiieZxe , ovk exexe 

<5 cd z6 fJn aizeZcrdaL ujaSc;, 

glxe'Zxe atxette 

Kal ov Xaii^auexe Kai. do0naexa(. u^tv, 

dtoxt KaKUQ aLxetcree, tva 

eu xaZc, n<^ouaZc, iniQi> Sanaufiarixe . 

Cntetxe Kal eupnaexe. 

Kpouexe Kai auoLyncrexaL ufitv 

The divergent translations of Jas . 4:2-3 reveal different 
understandings of the sentence structure. Since the idea of 
coveting seems thematically disconnected from murdering, several 
versions (NASB, RSV, NEB, JB, TEV) place a full stop after "you 
kill", thus obtaining an aabb structure. 

4:2 (a) You desire and do not have; so you kill. 

(a) You covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. 

(b) You do not have, because you do not ask. 

4:3 (b) You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly to 
spend it on your passions. 

This structure, however, appears contrived since no Greek 

equivalent exists for "so" in 4:2 and two distinct Greek words 

{6 La and <5t6xt) stand behind the term "because" in the last two 

sentences. Furthermore, the full stop after "you kill" is 

unnecessary if we recognize that 4>ouevexe is a very early copying 

error (probably to harmonize "killing" with the fighting of wars 

in 4:1,3) and replace it with Erasmus' emendation (peoveLxe which 

yields perfect sense by combining "you envy" with "you are 

jealous". ^^ This change also explains why James employs the 

■^^This emendation is supported by internal evidence, the 
regular appearance of envy and jealousy together in 1 Mac. 8:16, 
Test. Sim. 4:5, and catalogues of vices, the occurrence of 
similar copying errors at 1 Pet. 2:1 B, Gal. 5:21, Test Ben. 7:2, 
and Clem. Horn. 2:11, and the support of commentators such as 
Luther, Calvin, Beza, Ewald, Spitta, Dibelius, Mayor, Chaine etc. 


related noun (pOouov in 4:5. We thus obtain a uniform abba 
structural pattern. 

(a) en i9u]ieZze xac ouk exexe , 

(b) (pOoueixe Kal CnAouxe Kal ou Svuacxee eTTtruxeLy, 

(b) iioxeaOe Kal noKep.e'txe , ouk excce <5ca to p.r} alxeZaOat ujiSq, ° 
(a) atxecxe Kal ov Aanfiauexe 

<5t6rL KaKWQ aixeHcree , lua ev xacQ ncSoyacc; upSy daTrai^ncrnxe . 

In order to demonstrate that passions are the cause of wars and 

fightings (4:1), James constructs a chain-saying which begins 

with desire (roughly equal to passion), builds up to wars and 

fightings (thus proving the point made in 4:1), and concludes 

with a new thought about prayer. Asking in prayer is the 

alternative to desire and passion for James. Thus he attaches 

statements about prayer after substantiating his claim that 

passions are the basis of conflicts. The final phrase of 4:3 

brings the thought back to passions by accusing the audience of 

praying with polluted motives. 

James' message builds in intensity: 

You desire and do not have; 

You are envious and jealous and cannot obtain; 

You fight and wage war (and) do not have. 

But instead of concluding here, James appends the underlying 

reason why they cannot obtain, "because you do not ask." The 

somewhat disruptive manner in which these words fit into the 

context is one evidence that James is alluding to source material 

at this point, probably as in 1:5 to a saying of Jesus. It could 

be objected that Jas. 4:2c-3 does not contain the imperative 

"ask" with the subsequent promise "it will be given you" as in 

^^If this line read Kal ouk ex€xe (» P ffi etc.), then the 
parallelism would be clearer. 


Mt . 7:7; Lk. 11:9, However, as we shall see, this insertion into 
James' context explains the qualified form of the saying in 4:3b, 
the use of indicative rather than imperative in 4:3a, and the 
negative nature of the saying ("you do not have") in 4:2c. 

Jas . 4:2c-3 combines two types of sayings about prayer, 
one implying unequivocally that prayers will be answered ("you do 
not have because you do not ask" ) and the other explaining 
realistically why some prayers are not answered ("you ask and do 
not receive because you ask wrongly to spend it on your 
passions"). As Davids explains, "The unqualified form simply 
encourages one to trust God and to depend upon him, while the 
qualified form tells one how to pray and correct abuses. "^^ 
Dibelius claims that this qualification of the promise possesses 
historical significance since it indicates a later development 
when a highly intensified pneumatic consciousness and a strong 
conviction of belonging to the community of the last days have 
died down. He contends that only at a later time did answers to 
prayer become dependent upon the disposition of the petitioner^*^ 
or upon the type of the petition. ^^ However, it is more likely 
that qualified sayings about prayer existed alongside the unqual- 
ified form in the tradition. The conditions for answered prayer 

^^Davids, James , 160. 

^'-'Dibelius and Greeven, James , 219 cite as examples Lk. 
18:7 where the prayer of the "elect" is an addition to a 
supposedly original more general form; Herm. , Vis. 3,10,6 where 
self-humiliation through fasting is necessary in order to make 
the prayer effective; and Herm., Mand. 9:4 where the requirement 
is purification of heart. 

^■'•Dibelius believes this accounts for the change from 
"good things" in Mt . 7:11 to the prayer for the "Holy Spirit" in 
Lk. 11:13, a type of prayer that is surely answered. 


stipulated in 1 Jn. 3:22 (keeping his commandments and doing what 
pleases him) as well as 5:14 (asking according to his will) are 
evidence of this tradition in the early church. The unqualified 
and qualified forms would not be viewed as incompatible precisely 
because their functions differ. To a discouraged, doubting 
audience the unqualified form was utilized to build faith. On 
the other hand, when one prayed with a reckless impious 
disposition, the qualified form corrected abuses and taught one 
how to pray appropriately. James is, therefore, correcting an 
abuse in 4:3, whereas in 1:5 he employs the unqualified form to 
encourage those overcome by trials that prayer is the answer to 
meet their specific needs. 

Proof that James was alluding to a saying of Jesus would 
be more conclusive if James had employed the imperative rather 
than the indicative, SoOncTezai rather than Aajjpavexe, and the 
promise "ask and you shall receive" rather than the negative 
form. However, the indicative alxeLxe can be explained by the 
context since the completion of the chain-saying "you desire . . . 
you are envious and jealous . . . you fight and wage war" requires 
a statement rather than an imperative. The choice of the verb 
Aafipori/u rather than dis^iiL is not crucial since the Johannine 
versions of this dominical saying in Jn. 16:24 and 1 Jn. 3:22 
replace SoOnaexat with XuinpeaOe . Furthermore, within the 
Synoptic gospels themselves the word Xaji^avbi is employed in the 
following verse (Mt. 7:8; Lk. 11:10 ttSq yap 6 aizuv Aafigavec). 
Finally, the negative format, "you do not have because you do not 
ask, " is likewise explained by the parallelism in the chain- 


saying; the first and third parts of James' progression end with 
the exact wording, ouk exexe . This "not having" inevitably 
requires an explanation placed in the negative, "because you do 
not ask." Jesus' promise cannot be fulfilled among them. 

The shift from the middle voice {atxeZadaL 4:2c), to the 
active {alxecte 4:3a), and back again to the middle (alveZaOe 
4:3b) has sometimes been offered as evidence that source material 
is being incorporated here. Kittel,^^ fQj, instance, contends 
that James normally employs the middle but, because of a 
conscious allusion to a saying of Jesus, switches to the active 
voice in which this gospel saying was transmitted. Although 
MuBner, Davids, and Hartin offer tentative support to Kittel's 
thesis, ^-^ the majority of scholars refuse to see any significance 
in the alternation between the middle and active voice of this 
verb. Dibelius calls the two words "synonymous"; BAGD concludes 
that "they seem to be used interchangeably"; Blass-Debrunner 
label the distinction "arbitrary" . ^^ Turner suggests a deadening 
of linguistic sensitivity since he cannot locate any grammatical 
rule in either Hellenic or Hellenistic Greek to explain the 
alternation of forms. ^^ 

Several authors account for this change in voice by 
positing subtle distinctions of meaning. Mayor explains that 
"when altetxe is thus opposed to alxeZade it implies using the 

^^Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort," 89. 

^^MuBner, Jako busbrief , 179; Davids, James , 160; Hartin, 
James and Q, 178. 

^■*Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James, 219, n.63; BAGD, s.v. 
dtxeu, 25; BDF 316.2. 

^^Moulton and Turner, Grammar, III: 54-55. 


words, without the spirit of prayer. "^^ This suggestion can be 

applied meaningfully to Jas . 4:2-3 but is totally misleading if 

applied to Jn, 16:24,26 or 1 Jn. 5:14-16. Hort argues that the 

middle means "asked for" and the active "ask a person". ^^ This 

solution would distinguish between "you have asked (active) 

nothing in my name" (Jn. 16:24) and "in that day you will ask 

(middle) in my name" (Jn. 16:26), where surely no distinction of 

meaning is in the author's mind. All such subtle distinctions of 

nuance prove ineffectual in reaching any firm exegetical results. 

As Turner explains, 

Every known attempt to make a distinction is no better than 
intellectual surmise. None has the support of sound 
linguistic evidence.^® 

We will cite early Christian contexts about prayer to 
substantiate the majority opinion that the active and middle 
voices function interchangeably. Certainly this is the case with 
John ' s wr i t ings . 

1 Jn. 5 - '----^- i^ - ->-' 

14 (middle) eau xl aixuiieda 

15 (middle) 8 eau aixu}p.eea 

16 (active) alxnaec xal duoec 

One could legitimately argue that both 1 Jn. 3:22 and 5:14-15 are 
allusions to Mt. 7:7; Lk. 11:9, and yet 3:22 employs the active 
voice (o eau alzuiiev Aa\i&auoii£v) while 5:14-15 uses the middle. 
Similarly in John's gospel we encounter a corresponding 
variation: Jn. 16:24 reads alxecxe Kal Kn\xil>ecT6e while 16:26 
utilizes the middle voice {alxncxecjee) . A second witness is the 

^%ayor, James , 133. Cf. Hauck, Jakobus , 192. 
^"^Fenton J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James , 90-91. 
^^Nigel Turner, Graniisat icaj, Insi,ghts into the New 
Testament, 163. Cf , Gustav Stahlin, s.v. atxew, TDNT, I:"~192.~ 


Shepherd of Hermas where on two occasions the active form 
directly precedes the middle (Vis. 3,10,7 alxetQ ... alxovjievoc,; 
Mand. 9:7 a atxecc; Arj'i'V- K;al eau a IxncrajjevoQ ... Aajagctvpc;) . 
Outside specific contexts of prayer we have a third witness in 
Mark. In the narration of the asking for the head of John the 
Baptizer, Mark interchanges the forms: 


22 (active) alxrjcrov ... Koi. dwaw aot 

23 (active) 6 xt eau p.£ aixnar^c, Suau) aoc 

24 (middle) xL atxnaupaL 

Similarly when the sons of Zebedee ask Jesus for positions of 

authority in his kingdom, the voice is varied by Mark as well as 

Matthew (Mt. 20:20,22). 

Mk. 10:35 (active) o eav alxncrufiev 

10:38 (middle) ouk olsaxe xL alxeZaOe 

Thus the best solution is to recognize the apparent 

interchangeability of the active and middle voice of alxew. 

Thus this piece of evidence should not be employed to confirm an 

allusion to a saying of Jesus at Jas. 4:2-3 as Kittel contends. 

Yet the pieces of evidence cited above remain sufficient to posit 

a second allusion to Mt . 7:7; Lk. 11:9 in the Epistle of James. 

2.5 Jas. 1:6 Mt . 21:21 Mk. 11:23 

ct^rjy Aeyu vp-lv , ^"^^aiiriu Aeyw vfiiu ox l 

acxetxcj c5e oq av elnrt xu opec xouxu 

th> niaxeL eav exrixe ttLgx lu ^Sc^qJ^ ^^ 6LaKpL 6ri 

lin6'ev~ ~s LOKp L uoiievoQ' Kal p.r} <5 taKPL 0j^xe , eu xr? Kapd'ig cruxou 

6 yap dLOKpiuoiieuoQ ... aAAa kqv xy aAAor nia xevn 6x t o^AaAet 

opet xouxo) einrite- yivexaL, ecrxac avxQ . 

eoLKCu KAvduui ap0nxL Kal ^An0^tL '^^^apdntL Kal ^KnBriXi. 

eaXaaaric, etc, xnv daKaoa av , e lq xr]v daAacxcrav , 

6iueiiLZop.eutJ Kal yevrjaexaf 

^LTTL^oixevu . 

In both the gospels and the Epistle of James one encoun- 
ters a similar coupling together of the themes of prayer and 


faith, ^^ Regarding the contexts Mark has grouped together three 
distinct sayings after the narrative of the withered fig tree: 
11:23 faith and doubt; 11:24 faith in prayer; 11:25 forgiveness 
and prayer. Matthew includes the first two of Mark's sayings in 
a similar setting (Mt. 21:21-22) but attaches the saying about 
forgiveness to the Lord's Prayer in Mt . 6:14, James' train of 
thought flows from the surety of answered prayer (1:5) to the 
condition of the petitioner when praying (1:6). A praying stance 
of doubt will not bring answered prayer since doubt indicates a 
condition of double-raindedness and instability (1:7-8). In a 
similar fashion to Jas . 4:2c-3, James explains why Jesus' promise 
of "ask and it shall be given to you" does not at times find 
fulfillment. Therefore, we encounter the same movement from an 
unqualified promise of answered prayer to a qualified form 
stressing the circumstances when this promise cannot be 
fulfilled. In 4:3 the problem is asking selfishly; here the 
wrong attitude centers upon doubt. After first suggesting that 
doubt about the object of the request might be in James' mind as 
in 4:3, Laws rightly concludes that the doubt concerns the 
certainty of receiving the outcome of the request.^'-' It is not 
what they are praying for but how they are praying (without 
faith) which is the author's concern. 

^^Authors have offered both an exegetical and theolcqical 
argument to contend that faith is used in a broad sense here and 
not just in regard to prayer. Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James , 
80. Yet neither argument is convincing. If one accepts the 
Shepherd of Hermas (Mand. 9:3ff) as a commentary on this passage, 
then at least Hermas thought James was referring to faith in a 
context of prayer. 

^°Laws, J ames , 56-57. Did. 4:4 and Barn. 19:5 echo the 
same theme . 


Central to the teaching of both James and Jesus is the 
essential role that believing prayer plays in the disciple's 
life. Based on God's sure promise that "they will receive," con- 
fident asking without doubt in one's heart is imperative to the 
prayer life according to James (1:5-6; 4:2c; 5:15) as it was with 
Jesus (Mt. 7:7-11; Lk. 11:9-13; Mk. 11:24; Mt . 21:22; 18:19-20). 


A common view of God as a fatherly provider stands in the back- 
ground with James describing the "Father of lights" who gives 
"every perfect gift" (1:17) "to all men generously and without 
reproaching" (1:5) just as Jesus talked about a father who gives 
good gifts (Mt. 7:11) to humans in the same manner as he gener- 
ously supplies the needs of the birds (Mt. 6:26) and lilies 
(6:28-30), Prayer for both James and Jesus is the most 
appropriate response to a situation of need. For James these 
situations include times of trial when wisdom is lacking (1:5), 
interpersonal conflict characterized by passionate covetousness 
(4:2-3), and times of sickness where sin is also present (5:14- 
16). The gospel writers likewise attach the need for forgiveness 
of sins to contexts whose main subject is believing prayer (Mt. 
6:14; Mk . 11:25). James' exhortation for intercession in times 
of sickness could also be based on the example of Jesus (Mt. 8:6- 
7; 9:27; Mk . 1:40; 6:56; Jn . 11:41-42) so that Jesus' healing 
ministry is continuing through the church. ^^ Finally, prayer is 
essential in determining the will of God for future plans for 
both James and Jesus. James instructs the merchants who are 
talking with_ each other (rather than God) about their future 
plans (4:15) to say, "If the Lord wills." Similarly, Jesus seeks 
the will of God in his Gethsemane prayer (Mk. 14:35 par.) and 
teaches his disciples to pray "Thy will be done" in his paradigm 
prayer (Mt . 6:10). 

Both the content and the context in the gospels and James 
are thus roughly parallel. There are also limited similarities 

^-'■Of. Appendix I, section 4.12 


of vocabulary. In each case a contrast is drawn between doubt 
and faith using the imagery of the sea. It is natural, there- 
fore, to find some similar vocabulary such as the terms ntazoq,, 
d LaKpiuu , and BaXacraa. James, however, places the word "faith" 
in the dative case while Matthew uses the accusative case and 
Mark, the verb ntazevij. James utilizes the present participle of 
the term "doubt" while the gospels have the aorist passive form. 
Thus although three words are common to each, there is no evi- 
dence that James is copying the saying employed by the gospel 
writers . 

The word order of Mt , 21:21 is closest to the Epistle of 
James. From this fact Davids argues that 

Surely James is reworking a concept found in Mt . 21:21 (par. 
Mk. 11:23), and in doing so he appears to be carrying the 
tendency of the Matthean redaction (where the faith-doubt 
contrast is sharpened from Mark) a little further to the 

point where he sees behind the doubt the root distrust of 

God. 92 

On the contrary, it is our contention that Matthew is not 
endeavoring to sharpen the faith-doubt contrast by changing the 
word order in Mark. Instead, Matthew only wants to clarify the 
chronological order of events. Since an attitude of faith 
without doubting is necessarily prior to any command to move a 
mountain into the sea, Matthew changes the sequence of Mark's 
text. Therefore, James' closer word order with Matthew does not 
imply that he is continuing a redaction begun by Matthew. 

It is our conviction that James is not deliberately 
alluding to a preexistent saying of Jesus. The occurrence of 


Davids, James, 73 


three common words is caused by the similar subject matter, not 
by their presence in the supposed gospel parallels. It is admit- 
tedly peculiar that imagery drawn from the sea is utilized in 
each case. Yet upon closer examination neither the intended 
theme nor the aspect of the sea being compared is the same. 
James pictures the theme of doubt or lack of faith by drawing on 
the imagery of a wave tossed up and down by the sea's billowing 
action. On the other hand, the gospels describe the theme of 
faith or not; by alluding to a mpuxita^in which is cast 
into the depths of the sea. Since sea metaphors were a common 
literary phenomenon , 93 there is no vital connection between these 
two metaphors. Furthermore, James' imagery is unique since both 
Greek words occur only here in the NT.^* Therefore any contact 
with another sea metaphor in the NT is doubtful. 

Although their teachings about prayer are similar, the 
emphases of James and Jesus are not identical. Peculiar to James 
are his prayer for wisdom (1:5), the imagery picturing a doubting 
attitude (1:6), and the teaching that the prayer of a righteous 
man works powerful results (5:17). Both James and Jesus use the 
example of Elijah with the same unique time designation (three 
years and six months of no rain found in Lk. 4:25; Jas , 5:17), 
but a completely different point is stressed (Elijah as a prophet 

^-^Cf . Dibelius and Greeven, James, 81-82, n. 59. The 
metaphor of the mountain cast into the sea is connected with 
other themes besides faith (unity, for instance, in Thomas 48 and 
106), but this saying is never combined with other sea metaphors. 

^^Mayor, James, 39 even contends that dvejJiLCu was first 
coined by James, Dibelius and Greeven, James, 81, n. 56 call 
this suggestion "methodologically unacceptable" since the other 
term (btTrtCw is used in previous literature, and James is more 
likely to have combined two traditional terms. 


to the Gentiles in Luke; Elijah as an example of prayer in 
James), James also omits several distinctive emphases of Jesus 
including his frequent criticism of hypocritical prayer (Mt. 6:5- 
6; Mk. 12:40; Lk. 18:llff; 20:47), his prayer for the enemy (Mt. 
5:44; Lk . 6:28), his teaching about importunity and steadfastness 
in prayer (Lk, 11:5-8; 18:1-8), and his prayers of exorcism (Mk, 
9:29 par.), Jesus' sample prayer (Mt, 6:9-13; Lk, 11:1-4) is not 
transmitted here as in Did, 8:2, although some think Jas . 1:2-18 
is based upon the sixth petition, "Lead us not into tempta- 
tion, "^^ In the Epistle of James we also encounter several 
references about prayer which indicate an historical progression 
beyond Jesus, In James' depiction of the elders of the church as 
the instruments of the healing ministry (5:14), we observe both a 
progression to an ecclesiastical situation and an 
institutionalization of what was for Paul a charismatic activity 
(1 Cor. 12:9).^^ Furthermore, James' emphasis upon double- 
mindedness (1:8; 4:8) could indicate that after an initial surge 
of enthusiasm the Christian faith is now not held so vigorously 
and purely, ^^ Therefore the similar teaching patterns of James 
and Jesus on prayer should not be emphasized without acknowl- 
edging the unique emphases of each and James' historical progres- 
sion beyond the teaching of Jesus, 

95cf, Michaels, NT Speaks, 329, 

^^Davids, James, 57 explains, "They have ex officio the 
right to pray for the healing of disease and the forgiveness of 
sin , " 

^^The verb, noun, and adjective forms of this word are 
not found in the LXX or NT outside the Epistle of James, while 
many parallels can be illustrated from the Apostolic Fathers, 
esp. the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. 9,21,1-2). 


James' exhortation against doubting in prayer (1:6) is 
similar to Jesus' instruction and is surely repeated in the 
teaching of the early church because Jesus stressed this theme. 
Therefore, we can agree with Biichsel ' s comment that "the atten- 
tion paid to doubt in the NT is obviously the reverse side of the 
unconditional promise which is given to faith". ^^ The theme of 
faith in prayer has entered into the church's teaching because of 
Jesus' prominent emphasis on this important point, yet there is 
no indication that James is alluding to a specific logion of 
Jesus such as Mt . 21:21 or Mk . 11:23. James employs his own 
metaphor to express a common theme regarding prayer — a call to 
faith away from doubt. 9^ He only has in mind the saying of Jesus 
already quoted at 1:5; in 1:6 James is merely showing when this 
promise will not be fulfilled in a similar fashion to 4:2c-3. 

2.6 Jas. l:19b-20 Mt . 5:22a 

CCTTw 6e nac^avepumoc, iyij se Aeyu uiiZu ox l 

xaxuQ etc, xo OKOuaaL, 

ppaSvc, SLQ to AaAnaai, 

gpadUQ etc, opyqu ■ 

^^oeyn yap avdpoQ naq 6 ojpy_Lt:6iieuoq 

"cy a6eA4>u} auxou 
SiKOLOcrvuriv 0£ou ouK epya^ezai. euoxoq, eaxoL X{7 Kplaei- 

Jas. 1:19 contains a trio of short exhortations to be 

quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger. The last of 

these is then picked up and given a specific rationale in v. 20, 

Q ft 

Friedrich Biichsel, s.v. SLaKpivtj, TDNT, III: 948. 
That faith in prayer is an important Jamesian emphasis 
IS shown by Jas. 5:15. 


the angry person^*-"^ does not work the righteousness of God. The 
righteousness of God can be categorized either as 1 ) a genitive 
of quality or subjective genitive (BDF 165); 2) a genitive of 
origin (BDF 162); or 3) an objective genitive (BDF 163). The 
genitive of quality would express the fact that since anger Is 
not an attribute of God's character, neither should humans 
indulge in It.-'-'-*-^ Although von Soden attempted to prove this use 
by claiming that deov must be parallel to audpac,, Dlbelius has 
shown that it is possible to claim ' rhetorical parallelism in case 
while at the same time positing a syntactical dif f erence . ^02 ^^ 
genitive of origin would imply that righteousness has its origin 
in our relationship with God. This particular phrase, "the 
righteousness of God" (Rom. 1:17; 3:21f,26; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21), 
as well as the expression, "the righteousness from God" (Phil. 
3:9), and the word dcKaiOCTUvr? by itself (Rom. 5:21; 9:20; 1 Cor. 
1:30; 2 Cor. 3:9) all mean for Paul the imputed righteousness 
bestowed by God.^^^ In James this use would indicate that God's 
favorable verdict could never be given to the angry man. It is 

■'•'-''^Here as in 1:7-8 avrip Is used in the same setting with 
ay epujToc, , being employed interchangeable to refer to generic 
humanity. Mayor, James, 62 is mistaken when he explains, "the 
speakers would be men, and they might perhaps imagine that there 
was something manly in violence," as is Hort, .James, 36 who 
states that diunp instead of avOpunoc, meant "the petty passion of 
the Individual", Against Mayor see Albrecht Oepke, s.v, dcunp , 
TDNT, I: 362 who explains that sexual differentiation is mostly 
expressed by &paeu and 0nAu. 

-'■^■'■The Epistle of Aristeas 254 expresses this, although 
righteousness is not mentioned: "God rules ... without wrath at 
all, and you, King, must of necessity copy His example." 
(Charles, APOT, II: 117). 

■'•'^^Dibelius and Greeven, Janje s , 110, n. 12 use Rom. 
12:10ff as evidence. 

^•^■^BAGD, s.v. SiKaLoavuri , 196-197. 


extremely doubtful, however, whether James would use righteous- 
ness in the same sense as Paul since one is justified in James 
not in spite of actions but precisely through human action. ^'-'^ 
Therefore, the third usage of an objective genitive is the most 
appropriate. James is speaking about the ethical demands of 
righteousness and not about an imputed gift of salvation. The 
angry person can never attain this ethical standard. The verb 
epyds^Gj would therefore be a synonym for noLeu}, implying that the 
righteousness intended here is a human action. Jas . 2:21-23 sup- 
ports this usage since Abraham's act of offering up Isaac indi- 
cates that he has attained the ethical righteousness which God 
had promised would be reckoned to him. Hermas ' understanding ot 
righteousness is also in line with James' conception. Using his 
peculiar term o^uxoAca, Hermas warns that the working of an angry 
temper leads the servants of God astray from righteousness (Mand. 

With this as background we will now consider the ties to 
the gospel teaching about anger in Mt . 5:22. In each case there 
is similar subject matter, i.e. a moral exhortation against 

anger .y'^Some authors even claim that Matthew and James equate 
anger and murder. For Matthew anger is tantamount to murder and 
"when James warns his readers not to kill, he has in mind not 
simply a physical action, but the more comprehensive attitude of 
hating another. "lO^ypurthermore, one might argue that the phrase 

"not work the righteousness of God" could be interpreted 

l°'*Cf. Gottlob Schrenk, s.v. 6 LKaiocruun . TDNT , II: 200 

^"-'^Hartin, James and Q, 165 

eschatologically and seen as roughly parallel to the gospel usage 
"liable to the judgment". Even though righteousness is not spe- 
cifically mentioned in 5:22, Matthew does introduce the term at 
the head of his six antitheses in 5:20. In addition, both James 
and Matthew employ the term 6 iKatoavvn in an unPauline sense, 
closer to the Jewish OT sense of moral uprightness found in human 
conduct . -^^^ 

In spite of these similarities, the differences stand out 
more strikingly. The precise wording is nowhere the same, Mat- 
thew chooses an attributive participle for the term "anger" while 
James prefers the noun. The word "righteousness" in Matthew is 
more a title of the whole section 5:21-48 than a reference to 
this exhortation against anger. The fact that dcKaiocrjJvn is only 
employed in contexts about John the Baptizer (3:15; 21:32), in 
beatitudes whose wording is peculiar to Matthew (5:6,10), and as 
an introduction or conclusion to material found only in Matthew 
(5:20; 6:1,33) is evidence that this word was particularly 
appropriate to Jewish audiences . ^-^ ' Secondly, Jas , 1:20 exhibits 
a contrast between human anger and divine righteousness while Mt , 
5:22 is structured according to cause and effect so that anger 
results in judgment . 1°^ /thirdly , James is using traditional lan- 

l°^Cf. ch. 4, section 3.5. 

^^'^The one occurrence in Lk. 1:75 speaks similarly about 
John the Baptizer and is in a context (Lk. 1-2) filled with Semi- 
tic concepts. 

I'-'^Spitta, Zur Gesjjhichte, 11:163 attempts to widen the 
differences by claiming that Matthew is speaking about human 
anger against the neighbor while James is referring to anger 
directed at God, but Mayor, James, 63 points out that James' 
emphasis on human character qualities in 1:21 indicates that 
anger among humans is uppermost in his mind. 


guage at 5:6 to describe the actions of the powerful rather than 
their anger, and Erasmus' conjecture (pOoueize should replace mur- 

der at 4 :2 . 109f pj^nally, the saying in James is a word to the wise 
rather~~~~tiTan — arr^eschatological saying grounded in the fear of 
punishment as is the threefold reference in Matthew to retribu- 
tion by judgment, the council, and the hell of fire. Although 
these differences argue against a Matthean comparison, an allu- 
sion to source material is evidenced by the use of catchwords and 
the standard pattern of James' exhortations . H*-* We will argue 
that James is reproducing either Jewish wisdom or the catecheti- 
cal teaching of the church rather than the words of Jesus. 

Warnings against anger frequently occur in gnomic litera- 
ture. The book of Proverbs considers anger dangerous since it 
leads to evil consequences (Prov. 6:34; 15:1; 14:17; 16:14; 
19:19; 27:4; 29:22). Eccles. 7:9 warns, "Be not quick to anger, 
for anger lodges in the bosom of fools." Although the concept of 
"slow to anger" closely resembles Jas. 1:19, the divergent word- 
ing of the LXX^^^ argues against any intentional allusion. At 
Qumran anger is condemned categorically: IQS 5:25 commands, "Let 
no man address his companion with anger," while IQS 7:12 records 
a specific punishment, "If he has spoken in anger against one of 
the priests inscribed in the Book, he shall do penance for one 
year and shall be excluded." The entire fourth chapter of the 
Testament of Dan is an exhortation against anger and its effectsv 
The Mishna continues the OT wisdom tradition by exhorting against 
any sudden outburst of anger. Aboth 2:10, for instance, states, 
"be not easily provoked to anger. "110 jj^ very intriguing parallel 
in Aboth 5:lp-15m describes the righteous person (T'on) as 
being slow to anger (5:11), swift to hear (5:12), and practicing 
what one has learned at the house of study (5:14), just as James 

^•^^Cf. above, section 2.0. 

^^^lir} OTreuCTjiQ ev ni>evp.axi aov xov 9u]i.ovcr9aL. 

■'•I'^Here we follow Epstein's translation, p. 20. Danby 
translates this phrase "and be not easily provoked." (olssp"? D 1 3 ) . 

m5:10,13 deal with almsgiving and 5:15 with retaining 
only the beneficial knowledge on^ has learned, neither of which 
are found in James ' context . 


exhorts to be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (1:19), 
and doers rather than hearers of the word (1:22). This connec- 
tion between anger and a lack of wisdom continues In the Talmud: 
Pesahim 66b explains, "As to every man who becomes angry, if he 
is a sage, his wisdom departs from him."H2 xhese parallels indi- 
cate the close ties in content and progression of thought between 
Jewish wisdom literature and Jas. 1:19-25. 

The Epistle of James evidences affinites with the ethical 
teaching of the NT church as well as with Jewish wisdom and legal 
literature. The church does not condemn anger categorically. 
Alluding to Ps . 4:5 Paul distinguishes between temporary anger 
which fades before the sun has set (Eph. 4:26) and sustained 
anger which is categorized as a deadly sin (4:31). Similarly in 
James, as Stahlin remarks, "There is no absolute negating of 
anger. "^■'■2 As with Paul, James sets side by side advice aimed at 
hindering the evil effects of anger (1:19) H4 ^^th a clear con- 
demnation of anger (1:20). One of the qualifications for leader- 
ship in the church is the abstaining from this sinful anger (Tit. 
1:7; Pol. Phil. 6:1). Therefore anger is included in several of 
the lists of grievous sins {eviioi Gal. 5:20; 2 Cor. 12:20; opyn 
and OviiOQ Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8) which must be extinguished from 
the disciple's life, Jas. 1:21 fits into this common 
ecclesiastical teaching pattern by advocating the putting off (in 
this case anger, filthiness, and the rank growth of wickedness) 

^^^h. Pesahim 66b, ed . Epstein, 337. 

ll^Qusi-av Stahlin, s.v. opyr? , T D N T , V: 421. 

■^^■^Paul ponders the long term effects of anger ("let not 
the sun go down upon it"), while James thinks about sudden out- 
bursts of unprocessed anger ( "be slow to anger" ) . 


and the putting on (here, meekness) of certain character 
qualities. This cataloguing of vices and virtues became such a 
common Instrument of ecclesiastical teachingH^ that some even 
contend that the catalogue of vices allocated to Jesus (Mk. 7:21- 
22; Mt . 15:19) is of a secondary character inserted by the 
church. ^1^ In fact one might even argue that Mt . 5:22 originated 
in the moral exhortations of the church. Jesus appears not to 
have opposed all anger since he is admittedly angry with the 
Pharisees (Mk, 3:5) and the participants in the temple cult (Mk. 
11:15-16 par,) and even compares God to an angry master in his 
parables (Mt. 18:34; 22:7; Lk, 14:21). Could the Matthean church 
have taken a stricter moral stance than Jesus himself on this 
topic? On closer examination the fact that Jesus became angry or 
compared God to an angry master does not contradict the saying in 
Mt . 5:22 but rather points to an already common distinction in 
Judaism between God's righteous anger and human anger originating 
in and controlled by the passions. ^^^ The absolute character of 
the ethical demand found in Mt . 5:22 carries the irony of 
exaggeration which was often used by Jesus for its shock value 

^■'■^Cf . Erhard Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Paranese 
IB Neuen Testament , esp . 11-38, 

l^^Rudolf Bultmann, Histor^y o^f the Synoptic Tradition, 
166; William L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark, 256; Eduard 
Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew , 328; Taylor, Mark, 
347, Evidence includes the Pauline vocabulary, the symmetrical 
arrangement of the lists, the absence of such lists in the 
sayings tradition, the signs of catechetical interest in Mk. 7:1- 
23, and the interpretative comment of the evangelist at Mk, 
7:19b. However, since such catalogues of virtues and vices are 
found at Qumran (IQS 4:3,9-11), Jesus himself probably employed 
this type of speech. 

ll'^Cf. Stahlln, s,v. opyn , TDNT, V: 427. 


upon his audience, lis The fact that most of the other Matthean 
antitheses possess another witness supporting the saying as a 
logion of Jesus confirms the fact that Mt , 5:22 also derives from 
Jesus. 11^ Thus both Jesus and the ethical tradition of the church 
transmit teachings about anger which are based upon an already 
established Jewish tradition. 

To help determine whether James took his pattern from 
Jewish wisdom, Jesus' preaching, church paraenesis, or a combina- 
tion of the above, we will examine the close parallel to Mt . 5:22 
in the teaching manual of the early church, The Teaching of the 
Twelve Apostles. Did. 3:1-6, put into an outline format, reads 
like this: 

3:1 My child, flee from every evil 

and everything that resembleth it. 

3:2 Al Be not angry, {]xi) yiuov opycAoQ) 

2 for anger leadeth to murder, (odnyet yap r? opyn rrpog toy 

3 nor jealous nor contentious nor wrathful; 4>6uou) 

4 for of all these things murders are engendered, 
3:3 Bl My child, be not lustful, {p.r) ycvou en levinnzinc,) 

2 for lust leadeth to fornication, {bdinyeZ yap n en L9up.ia 

npoc, zr)u napueiau) 

3 neither foul-speaking neither with uplifted eyes; 

4 for of all these things adulteries are engendered. 
3:4 CI My child, be no dealer in omens, 

2 since it leads to idolatry, 

3 nor an enchanter nor an astrologer nor a magician, 
neither be willing to look at them; 

4 for from all these things idolatry is engendered. 
3:5 Dl My child, be not a liar, 

2 since lying leads to theft, 

3 neither avaricious neither vainglorious; 

4 for from all these things thefts are engendered. 
3:6 El My child, be not a murmurer , 

2 since it leadeth to blasphemy, 

3 neither self-willed neither a thinker of evil thoughts; 

ll^Ibid., 420. 

ll^Cf. Lk. 15:18 and Mk . 10:11-12 with the third 
antithesis (Mt. 5:32); Jas . 5:12 with the fourth (Mt. 5:33-37); 
Lk. 6:29-30 with the fifth (Mt. 5:39-40,42); Lk. 6:27-28,32-36 
with the sixth (Mt. 5:44-47). 


4 for from all these things blasphemies are engendered. 
Did. 7:1 ("Having first recited all these things") suggests that 
the material of chapters 1-6 is a catechism to be recited before 
being baptized. This section, commonly entitled the "Two Ways", 
is also recorded in the Epistle of Barnabas 18-20.120 r^-^e 
Didache , however, includes two additional sections: 1:3-2:1, a 
collection of Jesus' sayings, and 3:1-6, commonly called "the 
fences", derived from the Jewish conception of fences around the 
law, 121 ^j^g first two exhortations of Did. 3 are especially close 
parallels to Matthew's first two antitheses. Both connect anger 
to murder and lust to fornication. They employ similar termin- 
ology with Matthew prefering the verb forms {<^oyeuu, opycCu, 
IJOLxeuw, ernQviieu)) and the Didache opting for the use of nouns 
(6py!-7, c^oyoQ, e7rL0u|aia, Tropveia) . Furthermore, both appear to be 
commentaries on the ten commandments, each beginning with the 
sixth command concerning murder. 122 

•'■20J.M. Creed, E.J. Goodspeed, A. von Harnack (later 
view), K, Kohler, J, P. Audet , R, Knopf, B.H. Streeter, and C. 
Taylor advocate a common source. 0. Bardenhower . F.X, Funk, R.D. 
Hitchcock, and F, Brown postulate a Didache original. F.C. 
Burkitt, R.H. Connally, J. Muilenburg, and J. A. Robinson perceive 
a Barnabas original. 

121cf, Aboth 1:1. Fences made it more difficult for 
certain forbidden acts to occur by prohibiting attitudes or 
actions which fostered them. 

l^S-rj^g Didache speaks about killing (6th), adultery 
(7th), lying (9th), stealing (8th), and includes exhortations 
against the important subjects of idolatry and blasphemy. Mat- 
thew, after a new interpretation of the sixth and seventh com- 
mandments, includes a reference to divorce from Dt . 24: Iff which 
topically is closely tied with the 7th commandment, then speaks 
of oaths (9th or 3rd), and ends with two sayings commenting on 
the comprehensive OT command, "love your neighbor as yourself" 
(Lev. 19:18). 


There is a general consensus that the Two Ways is Jewish 
in origin, 123 jf 3: 1-6 were originally a part of such a document 
or oral catechism, then Mt . 5 :21b, 22a, 28 and probably Jas . 1 : 19b~ 
20 all derive from Jewish wisdom. However, since Did. 3:1-6 is 
not found in the parallel material in Barnabas, ^24 j^^ must either 
be a moral teaching gathered from additional Jewish wisdom 
material by the church or allusions to dominical logia as in the 
other major addition to the Two Ways, Did. 1:3-2:1. Both the 
studies of Wohlenberg and Glover^^S omit Did. 3:2-3 when they 
compare the Didache to the teaching of Jesus, Furthermore, Mat- 
thew (or an ecclesiastical tradition behind Matthew) is often 
seen as the formative influence upon the antithetical structuring 
of Jesus' teaching. 126 Therefore, Did. 3:1-6 is probably not a 

1 23 James Muilenburg, The Literary E§.i§^t i.oils of the 
Ep istl e o_f Barnabas and The Teaching of the Twelve Apost_les, 98- 
107. Robert Kraft, Tlie Apos^toJ.i.c Fathe rs : Barnabas and the 
Didache, 4 is correct in asserting that IQH 3:18ff indicates that 
a similar Two Ways device was in vogue in Semitic-speaking Jewish 
communities in preChristian times. 

l^^The self-contained structure of Did. 3:1-6 as well as 
the material from Barn, 19:3-6 demonstrates that it is an addi- 
tion. Richard H. Connolly, "The Didache in Relation to the 
Epistle of Barnabas," JThS 33(1932): 241-242 states that the 
structure of Did. 3:1-6 "is wholly unlike anything in the rest of 
the Two Ways." Out of the 25 words used to describe sins and 
sinners, 19 of these fail to occur in the rest of the Two Ways, 
either in the Barnabas or Didache recensions. 

125q_ Wohlenberg, Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel in ihrem 
Verhaltnis zum neutestament lichen Schrlf tum; Richard Glover, "The 
Didache's Quotations and the Synoptic Gospels," NTS 5(1958-59): 

126pQ]-. a summary of the various approaches see Robert A. 
Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount, 178-179, 


series of allusions to the Jesus-tradition. 127 j-j- ^g true that 
later in the Didache (15:3) another exhortation against anger 
("And reprove one another, not in anger but in peace" ^^Sj 
includes the editorial addition "as ye find in the Gospel". ^29 
However, from this fact we cannot deduce that Did. 3:1-6 is also 
an allusion to sayings of Jesus since "the fences" perlcope is 
found in the earlier Jewish Two Ways section and has a self- 
contained structure of its own. The most plausible solution is 
that the church's paraenetic instruction which characteristically 
combines eclectic material such as Jewish wisdom, religious 
aphorisms, and the important themes of Jesus' preaching inserted 
both Jewish wisdom (Did. 3:1-6) and allusions to Jesus' preaching 
(Did. 1:3-2:1) into the teaching manual of the church. The fact 
that both Mt . 5:21ff and Did. 3:1-6 arrange their teaching on the 
pattern of the ten commandments reveals that OT organizational 
patterns extended into the church's paraenetic exhortations . ^30 

A similar phenomenon has surely occurred in Jas . 1:19-21. 
The church's paraenetic tradition has taken over typical Jewish 
wisdom (1:19) similar to Eccles. 7:9 and Aboth 5:11-14 as well as 

127JQJ-^a-j-]-^an Draper, "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache," 
Gospel Perspectives, 5:271-272 explains, "Apparent echoes of the 
Jesus tradition outside these sections (i.e. l:3b-2:l; 8; 15:3-4; 
16) should be examined with great caution, since they may well 
derive from a Jewish Urtext , and even if they are the product of 
a Christian community, they may reflect the general milieu of the 
earliest Christian communities rather than the Jesus tradition. 

■^^^eAeyxe'ce <5e ofAAnAouQ iir) eu opyrj , orAA ' ev elpr}vr}, uc, 
^Xcce e:v t5 euayyeAtoj- 

-'■^yxhis exhortation against anger probably refers to Mt . 
5:22-25 (being angry followed by reconciliation) or the gospel 
tradition behind Matthew just as the other references to the 
gospel in the Didache seem to allude to specific passages (Did. 
8:3=Mt. 6:9-13; Did, ll:3=Mt. 10:41; Did. 15:4==Mt. 6:1-18). 

130cf. vokes, "Ten Commandments in NT," SE, V: 154. 


apostolic teaching patterns (1:21). Therefore, Jas . 1:20 stands 
right between Jewish wisdom and ecclesiastical exhortation and 
could be categorized as either. The best we can say is that Jas. 
1:20 is a religious aphorism transmitted by the church from con- 
cepts derived from Jewish wisdom. Exhortations against anger 
entered the church's paraenetic tradition both from traditional 
Jewish wisdoml^l ^^xd because specific logia of Jesus spoke 
against anger as in the genuine allusion to Mt . 5:22-23 in Did. 
15:3. Thus already in this first chapter of James' epistle we 
have seen how the church combines specific sayings of Jesus 
(1:5), certain important emphases in Jesus' preaching (1:2,6), 
and traditional Jewish wisdom material (1:19-20) into its author- 
itative ethical instruction. 
2.7 Jas. 1:22-23 Mt . 7:26 Lk. 6:49a 

yiveade 6e Kal rrac; 6 okovuv p.ov 6 <5e cxKouaac, 

7ro_Lnxal Aoyou touq AoyguQ touxouq 

Kal 111) iiouou aKpoaxal Kal jii) tjoj-uju auxovc, Kal iih ZLOj-ncrac; 

napaXoyi>^6]jeuoL eauxouQ. 

oxL el XCQ aKpoaxqc, Aoyou 

tax LP Kal ou Troi.r7xnQ/ 

ouxoQ eoLKev ojjo Lw^naexat opoioQ eaxip 

Kaxauoovux L xo TrpoauTroi^ ocrx lq UKodoixriaev oiKodoiiriaapxi 

XHQ yeveaeuic, avxou avxov xnv oiKiai' ocKtay 

tv ECTO/rxpw- enl xnu aniiou • enl xr)u yrji' 

X^ptQ 9ep.ehLOV 

We will first present the case for a dependence of Jas. 

1:22-23 upon a saying of Jesus and then develop an argument 

^^^Hoppe, Hintergrund Jako busb rief es , 5, n. 3 contends 
that Jas. 1:19 derives from Jewish wisdom but not 1:20 since 
c5cKaLOCTUi/n is not connected with opyn in wisdom literature. 
However, we have shown that similar statements about anger are 
common in Jewish wisdom. With regard to 6 LKaLoavvn we will 
demonstrate in our comments on Jas. 3:18 that this term was 
familiar to Jewish wisdom. 


against this supposition. In both gospels the saying about hear- 
ing and doing is located in the parable of the two houses which 
is placed at the end of Jesus' sermon as a vivid call to action. 
In general Matthew has retained the order of Q as found in Luke's 
gospel and only inserted additional pericopes (both Q and M) 
between several of Luke's sayings. ^32 only one loglon has changed 
its order; Lk. 6:31, the golden rule, has been positioned at Mt . 
7:12 as a summary to all the previous teaching. Following this 
compendium Matthew constructs a call to action in the form of 
four contrasts: 1) narrow and wide gates (7:13-14); 2) fruitful 
and unfruitful trees (7:15-20); 3) one saying "Lord, Lord" and 
one doing the will of the Father (7:21-23); and 4) one house 
built upon the rock and another upon the sand (7:24-27). 
Likewise, Jas . 1:19-27 could be entitled a call to action based 
upon the kerygmatic proclamation of 1:18 that "he brought us 
forth by the word of truth". Jas, 1:19-21 talks about recej-vin^ 
this word. One must be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to 
anger (1:19-20). One must put off certain harmful vices and 
receive this implanted word with meekness (1:21). Then Jas. 1:22 
speaks about doing this word. Jas. 1:23-24 follows with a nega- 
tive example of one failing to be a doer of the word while v. 25 
concludes with a positive model of one who has persevered in 
doing. Heeding this call to action results in a pure and 
undefiled religion (1:26-27). Thus we experience in James and 
the gospels the same emphasis on doing. 133 r^.-^^ commentators of 

l^^cf. Guelich, Sermon, 33-35. Matthew resorts to omis- 
sion as well with regard to the Lucan woes (cf. below, p. 293). 
133Qf^ MuBner, Jakobusbr ie^f , 104. 


the last two centuries testify to this matching perspective: this 
pair of sayings is the second most frequently quoted parallel (49 
out of 60 authors). 

Other arguments put forward for a relationship with Mt . 
7:26; Lk . 6:49 are less convincing. Davids^^^ claims that Origen 
recited Jas , 1:22 as an agraphon of Jesus. However, there is 
absolutely no indication in Horn. Gen. 2:6l35 that Origen is 
alluding to a saying of Jesus; rather it is a reference to the 
Epistle of James itself. ^^^ Supporters of an allusion to the 
gospels are also forced to admit that James employs his own 
unique vocabulary at this point. IIOLr7Tnc; occurs four of its six 
times in the NT in the Epistle of James, ^37 ^j^^j James possesses 
three of the four NT references to aKpoatnq . ■^■^® However, it is 
precisely this uniqueness of vocabulary that causes some to claim 
that James himself modifies the words found in the gospels. To a 
classical Greek audience TTOinxnc; Aoyou would mean a writer, poet, 
or orator while the phrase 7roLr7T:i7c; vojaou in Jas. 4:11 would indi- 
cate a legislator . 1^^ In James, however, we encounter a Semi- 
ticizing of the Greek so that the phrases mean "doer of the word" 
"and doer of the law" respectively. This could point to a close 

■'•^^Davids, James, 97 and "James and Jesus," 82-83, n. 36. 

13^"Let us pray, however, the mercy of the omnipotent God 
to make us not only hearers of his word but also doers." Ronald 
Heine, Ori_g;enj_ Homilies on Genes is and Exodus, The Fathers of the 
Church {Washington D.C.: Catholic Un. Press, 1982), 88. Davids 
mistakenly refers to Horn. 2:16. 

IS^Cf. ch. 6, n. 87. 

137jas^ 1:22,23,25; 4:11; Rom. 2:13; and Acts 7:28 where 
the classical Greek sense of a poet is used. 

138j33_ 1:22,23,25; Rom. 2:13. Herm., Vis. 1,3,3 and Dg. 
2:1 in the Apostolic Fathers. 

■^^^The TroLr7xnQ yojiiwv of Pseudo-Plato Def . 415b is not the 
one who keeps the laws but the one who issues them. 


tie with the Jesus-tradition which by its Jewish nature often 
contains Semitisms. Davids even contends that "the use of "hears 
these words of mine' and "does them' is close enough to James' 
unusual Greek that we believe that he had this particular parable 
in mind. "1^0 Advocates of this position do admit that the meta- 
phors used in the gospels and James are divergent: looking into a 
mirror vs. two houses built upon the contrasted foundations of 
rock and sand. Yet it is argued that a similar result is in 
mind; the momentary impression in a mirror which is soon forgot- 
ten is comparable to the momentary durability of a house built 
upon sand when a flash flood strikes its foundation. 

Proponents of an allusion to a gospel saying contend that 
"the Word is the Gospel as taught by Jesus", ^^^ and the perfect 
law of freedom (1:25) is the law interpreted by Jesus and ful- 
filled in the love commandment , l'^ 2 >pq evaluate this statement we 
will examine the use of the term AoyoQ in Jas . 1:18,21,22. Jas . 
1:18 states that the Father of lights "brought us forth by the 
word of truth that we should be a kind of first fruits of his 
creatures." The "word of truth" has sometimes been interpreted 
cosmologically l'^ 3 indicating the creating word which brought 
forth humankind as the first fruits, that is the preeminent part 
of the whole creation. Most often this verse is explained 
soteriologically either with the term Aoyoc; used 1) in a mystical 

^^^Davids, "James and Jesus," 72. 

I'^^Adamson, James, 82. 

^'*2cf. below, section 3.2. 

^^^Leonard E. El 1 iot-Binns , "James 1:18: Creation or 
Redemption?" NTS 3(1956-57): 148-161; Rendall, James and Judaic 
Christianity, 64; Hort, James, 31f; Laws, James, 78 attempts to 
combine a cosmological and soteriological interpretation. 


sense referring to the divine principle (in Hermetic texts uovc,) 
which indwells all human beings and brings forth a rebirth; ^^4 2) 
historically as the begetting of Israel (Dt. 32:18) as first 
fruits for God among the nations ( Jer . 2:3 MT; Philo, Spe_c, Lecj. 
4:180) by the instrument of the law described as the word of 
truth (Ps. 119:43), -145 qj, 3^ ^-q pgfer to the gospel of Jesus 
Christ whereby Christians are through salvation given a position 
as the first fruits of the eschatological age to come.^^^ The 
context, moving from God the creator of the heavenly bodies 
(1:17) to God as the Father of humankind, the culmination of all 
creation, supports the cosmological interpretation. The phrase 
"Father of lights" could refer to Gen. 1:3,14,18 and the "bring- 
ing forth" to Gen. 1:26. Furthermore, the more usual connotation 
assigned to xd KXiaiiaza is nonhuman creation. ■^'^'^ On the other 
hand, the phrase "word of truth" and the image of begetting are 
nowhere in the OT applied to creation. 148 jj^ ^j-^g jjrp p^^^ employs 
the phrase "word of truth" to refer to the gospel (Col. 1:5; Eph. 
1:13; 2 Tim. 2:15).149 2 Peter which frequently reveals signifi- 

144Qf_ Dibelius and Greeven, James, 105. 

145pQjp conclusive arguments against this position see 
Laws, James, 77. 

~~~"'TWEQf ^ Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the 
USH Testament , 350; also MuBner, Rope's ,' Wfndfsch 7" and Dibelius 
support this view. 

■'•^^Elliott-Binns , "James 1:18," 155 perceives this argu- 
ment as conclusive proof for the cosmological interpretation. 

^*^Cf. Ropes, James, 116. However, in Philo, Ebr. 30 
dsTTOKVoj appears to be used about creation. "And knowledge, having 
received the divine seed, when her travail was consummated bore 
(djTejcuncre ) "the only beloved son who is apprehended by the senses, 
the world which we see," Colson and Whitaker, Philo II_I, LCL , 
334-335, Cf. Elliot-Binns, "James 1:18," 151. 

1**^2 Cor. 6:7 refers to truthful speech and not the 
gospel while Test. Gad 3:1 indicates the law. 


cant parallels with the Epistle of James refers to the gospel 
(1:25) both as the truth (1:22) and as the word (1:23) through 
which Christians have been born anew (cxvayeyeuviiiievoL) , The term 
"first fruits" also corresponds much better with a soteriological 
understanding (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; Rev, 14:4). Finally, the 
earlier statement that sin brings forth (ofTTOKuet 1:15) death 
would naturally follow with a corresponding teaching that the 
word of truth has brought forth {aneKvriaeu 1:18) a new soterio- 
logical birth. Therefore, there is significant evidence that 
James had in mind the work of the gospel at 1:18, although it is 
not responsible exegesis to be overly dogmatic on this point. 

In 1:21 James exhorts his readers to "receive with meek- 
ness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls," The 
terra xdu eju^uxov Aoyoj.' has been understood in Stoic terms as the 
cosmic reason which is innately apportioned to every individual 
(reminiscent of the AoyoQ cnrepiiazLKoc,) .^^^ In its present context 
it is more likely that the term indicates the deeply rooted (as 
in Barn. 1:2; 9:9) gospel which brings salvation. As Laws 

This word would most naturally be understood as the preached 
word of the gospel, with both its promise of salvation and 
its ethical demand, and to 'receive' or 'accept' the word is 
a familiar description of conversion in the NT. 1^1 

Jas, 1:21 would then emphasize the soteriological demand and 1:22 

the ethical demand of this preached word. Therefore, a reference 

l^'-'The adjective efjipuxoc, usually implies being "implanted 
from birth" and, therefore, innate. These ideas, however, arose 
in Christian circles in Justin Martyr's time. Cf, 2 Apo 1 , 13:5; 

l^^Laws, James , 82, She refers to Acts 8:14; 17:11; 1 
Thess. 1:6; 2:13; Lk . 8:13, Cf . Gerhard Kittel, s.v. hiyu) , TDNT, 
IV: 116, 


is made to the gospel teaching in each case, v. 18 emphasizing 

the divine action and vv, 21-22 the human response. 

Those who argue against this conclusion point to the 

parallel between 1:22 (doers of the word) and 1:25 (doers that 

act according to the law) . Could James be speaking about the 

gospel in terms of hearing and doing the Jewish law? Laws has 

put her finger upon the key to understanding the flow of James' 

thought when she explains, 

Because the word demands response and action, ideas of 
obedience and so of law are associated with it, and in v. 25 
James shifts from talking in terms of word to talking in 
terms of law .... This does not mean that the word and the 
law are identified but that the former involves the lat- 
ter ,152 

As we will demonstrate at Jas , 2:8, our author understood the 

gospel as a new law, not one of bondage and constriction, but of 

perfect liberty (1:25; 2:13) fulfilled in the kingdom commandment 

of love (2:8). Thus James' conception of Aoyoc, (understood as 

the teachings of the gospel) can be employed to support the 

belief that Jas. 1:22-25 is alluding to the teaching of Jesus in 

Mt. 7:24-26; Lk . 6:46-49. 

Thus far we have attempted to present a good case for an 

allusion to a saying of Jesus at Jas. 1:22-23. On the other 

hand, the admission that Jas. 1:18,21,22 refer to the gospel does 

not entail that a dominical saying was in James' mind since the 

church constantly spoke of the gospel apart from sayings of 

Jesus. Moreover, there are at several points crucial differences 

between Jas. 1:22-25 and the gospel references. Certainly the 

■'•^'^Laws, James, 85. 


subject matter is identical, but verbal similarities are minimal. 
Jas. 1:22 uses the adjective dKpoaxnQ; the gospels the verb 
c^Kouo). Different forms of the central terms "doers" and "the 
word" are chosen. -I-SS Furthermore, the imperative mood (yiueaee) 
and the thought of deceiving yourselves (rrapaAoy l Copies oc eauxouQ) 
are unique to James. Turning to the metaphor in Jas, 1:23, more 
drastic dissimilarities confront the exegete: 1) different words 
introduce the parable {io lkcu in James vs. ofiotou in Matthew and 
opotoQ in Luke); and 2) the imagery is obviously disparate 
(gazing into a mirror vs. two houses), ^54 surely it is unlikely 
that James would allude to a gospel saying and then recreate the 
imagery so that it is totally unrecognizable. Dibelius remarks 
that "Jas usually has borrowed such metaphors, but in this case 
there is as yet still no proof of any dependency ," 1^5 Further- 
more, James' so-called unique phrase "doer of the law" is already 
found in Dt . 28:58, 1 Mac. 2:16, and Sir. 19:20. Therefore, one 
cannot presume from Jamesian vocabulary that he is alluding to a 
saying of Jesus. Since James adopts Semitic terminology, a more 
verifiable conclusion would be that the author is a Jewish 
Christian. The Semitic character of a writing can never alone 
prove that a saying of Jesus stands in the background. 

Finally, James has in common with more parties than just 
Jesus this antithesis between hearing and doing. One encounters 

■^^^In James noLinzinc, and the singular AoyoQ ; in the 
gospels the participle form of the verb and the plural form of 
the noun, 

l^'^Cf. Laws, James, 85. Gryglewicz, "Jacques et Mat- 
thieu," 46-47 believes the common term cxudpi links Jas. 1:22 to 
Matthew's gospel, but the totally different analogies demonstrate 
the insignificance of this parallel. 

-'•^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 115-116, 


this theme in all strands of Jewish and Christian teaching: the 
prophets (Ezk. 33:32), the law (Dt. 30:8ff), wisdom literature 
(Prov. 6:3; Sir. 3:1), Jewish philosophical treatises (4 Mac, 
7:9), Quraran { IQS 2:25-3:12; IQpHab 7:11; 8:1; 12:4; 4QpPs37 
2:14,22), Philo (Praem. jBoen, 79), Josephus (Ant. 20:44), the 
Mishnah (Aboth 1:17; 2:10; 5:14), the Talmud (b. Shabbath 88a), 
Paul (Rom. 2:13), and John (1 Jn, 3:17-18). Paul's parallel is 
especially interesting since the amount of verbal similarity is 
more than that found in the gospels. Speaking in a typical 
Jewish fashion, Paul explains, "For it is not the hearers of the 
law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who 
will be justified," Although Paul is addressing a slightly dif- 
ferent problem, ^^^ the similar wording and emphasis point to the 
possibility that James could just as easily have been quoting 
Paul as Jesus. Furthermore, when 1 Jn. 3:18 contrasts "in word 
or speech" with "in deed or in truth", John reiterates James' 
message of doing the word without an allusion to the sayings of 
the Jesus-tradition. Indeed why should one choose Mt . 7:26; Lk. 
6:49 as the allusion in Jas . 1:22-23 instead of Lk. 8:21 ("But he 
said to them. My mother and my brothers are those who hear the 
word of God and do it.")?!^'^ Here also the term AoyoQ is used 
together with the concepts of "hearing and doing." Therefore we 
have examples from Paul, John, and Luke's redaction of Mk. 3:35 
that the theme of hearing and doing was an important topic in the 
church's ethical teaching. This was especially true for James 

•'•^^Paul is confronting the Jew/Gentile problem while 
James is addressing the hearing/doing conflict, 

^^^ol xoy Xoyov xov 9eov aKovovxec, Kal noiovvzec,. 


who devotes a whole discourse to the related topic of faith and 

works (2:14-26). Every time a church leader like James taught on 

this theme, he was not consciously alluding to a saying of Jesus. 

The similarities and differences between Jas . 1:22-23 and Mt . 

7:26; Lk . 6:49 are better accounted for with the thesis that the 

themes of Jesus' preaching found their way into the paraenesis of 

the church than by the suggestion that James had a specific 

saying of Jesus consciously in mind. 

3.0 The Synoptic Parallels Encountered in the Three 
Paraenetic Discourses of Jas, 2:1-3:12 

A. 2:1-13 Discourse on Partiality. 

1. 2:1 Introductory exhortation. 

2. 2:2-7 Partiality to the rich. 

a. 2:1-4 Illustration of partiality. 

b. 2:5-7 Arguments against partiality. 

1) 2:5 Theological argument: God has chosen the poor 

(allusion to a saying of Jesus). 

2) 2:6-7 Experiential argument: in choosing the rich, they 

have harmed themselves, 

3. 2:8-13 Partiality with regard to obeying the law. 

a. 2:8-9 An illustration from the law found in Lev. 19:15,18, 

b. 2:10 James' conclusion. 

c. 2:11 A second illustration from the ten commandments 
(adultery and killing). 

d. 2:12 James' conclusion ("the law of liberty" is Jamesian) . 

e. 2:13 Related aphorisms (connected by catchword KpLuecreai / 

Kpiaic, / KptaeuQ). 

B. 2:14-26 Discourse on faith and works. 

1. 2:14-17 Faith separated from works is insufficient (dead), 
a. 2:14 Introduction of the person who acts as if faith alone 

is sufficient 

b. 2:15-16 Illustration about offering warm words without 

warm food and clothes. 

c, 2:17 James' conclusion (ending with a o5x(j<; clause and 

employing ueKpa eaxiv). 

2. 2:18-26 Faith and works belong together. 

a. 2:18a Introduction of the person who acts as if faith and 
works are separable 


b. 2:18b--19 Illustration from the demons who believe in God 
but have no works. 

b. 2:20-24 Illustration from Abraham. 

c. 2:25 Illustration from Rahab. 

d. 2:26 James' conclusion built upon an aphorism (ending with 

a ouxuQ clause and employing vcKpa ecrx lp). 

. 3:1-12 Discourse on the tongue. 

1. 3:l-2a Warning against becoming a teacher. 

a. 3:1a Exhortation for not many to be teachers. 
b. 3:1b Reminder of the proverb that leaders are judged by 
stricter standards. 
c. 3:2a Conclusion that we all make many mistakes. 
{ transitional) 

2. 3:2b-5 Bridling the tongue is difficult (ending with a outuq 

clause and tied to the preceding by catchword 
nxaLo]iep / TfxaieL). 

a. 3:2b Only the perfect person is able to bridle the tongue, 

b. 3:3-5 Illustrations demonstrating the power of little 

things like the tongue. 

1) 3:3 The bit of a horse. 

2) 3:4 The rudder of a ship. 

3) 3:5a The tongue of a person. 

4) 3:5b The match starting a forest fire (transitional). 

3. 3:6-10 Evils of the tongue (ending with a outwq clause and 

tied to the preceding by catchword nop / nvp) . 

a. 3:6 The tongue is a fire doing great damage. 

b. 3:7-8 The tongue cannot be tamed. 

c. 3:9-10 With it we bless and curse at the same time. 

4. 3:11-12 Three aphorisms illustrating the contradictory 

nature of the tongue (ending with oUxuc, in K, 
Byzantine ) . 

a. 3 

b. 3 

c. 3 

11 Springs do not pour forth fresh and brackish water. 
12a Fig trees do not yield olives or grapevines, figs. 
12b Salt water does not yield fresh. 

In contrast to chapter 1, Jas , 2:1-3:12 contains 
pericopes with a unified theme which could more properly be 
called discourses than loosely-knit paraenesis. Jas. 2:1-13 
expands on the concept of partiality (2:1,9) since James is con- 
cerned about the Christian community showing partiality toward 
the rich (2:5). He begins with a hypothetical example (eav and 
the subjunctive) of a worship service where a rich, well-dressed 


person is given precedence over a poorly attired one (2:2-4). An 
identical attitude is reflected in the Christian community which 
dishonors the poor whom God has chosen to inherit the kingdom 
(2:5-7). To illustrate the foolishness of this action, James 
demonstrates through two examples that showing partiality to one 
commandment (Lev. 19:18 loving the neighbor; Ex. 20:14 not comit- 
ting adultery) while dishonoring another (Lev. 19:15 showing 
partiality; Ex. 20:13 committing murder) still condemns one as a 
transgressor of the whole law. James ends with an aphorism 
(2:13) which serves as a transitional function in each of these 
three discourses (2:26; 3:11-12). In 2:14-26 James centers his 
attention on the inseparable connection between faith and works. 
Similar to 2:1-13 this section opens with a thematic sentence 
(2:1,14), continues with an illustration (2:2-4,15-17), a. 
theological argumeiit (2:5-7,18-19), and a two part scriptural 
argument (2:8-12,20-25), and finishes with a summary proverbial 
saying ( 2 : 13 , 26 ) . ^^^ The third discourse (3:1-12) is constructed 
around the theme of the teacher and the tongue. Again several 
traditional illustrations are employed to demonstrate the 
dangerous (3:1-5), devilish (3:6-7) double-edged (3:8-12) nature 
of the tongue. 


Cf. Davids, "James and Jesus," 72. 


3.1 Jas, 2:5 Mt. 5:3,5 Lk. 6:20b 

cxKovaaze , 

ddeA^OL jLiou ayanrixoi- 

oux 6 BeoQ egeAe^axo naKapLOL (laxapioc 

Tovc, TTXiJxovc, xu KOCTfiu ol TTtfaJxo ^ "cw 7Tuev]iav L , ol irTWXS^' 

ttAouctcouq ev TTicrxet 

^°^^ KAripoyojJouQ oxc auxwt' ecrziu ox l ujiexepa eaxLv 

xrjQ pqgLAe (.gQ n paatAe la n |a21cAejLa 

HQ errnyye lAoxo xuv oupavoiy. xov 9eov . 

xotQ cryarrwaov auxoy; iioKap lol ol npae'ic,, ox l 

*^'-''col KAiigoji^ognaoucrLy 

xrV y^y. 

Jas. 2:5 begins with the often repeated introduction, "my 
beloved brethren," coupled with a call to listen (crKouaaxe) 
indicating that what follows is important . ^^^ After this atten- 
tion getting device James contrasts the rhetorical question, "Has 
not God chosen the poor?" with two more interrogative sentences 
(all beginning with ouk) dialectically posed against the expected 
positive response toward the poor in 2:5. It seems that the 
Christian community itself has turned into a tool of oppression 
by siding with the rich against the poor. James thus endeavors 
to alter the behavior of the church by demonstrating the oppres- 
sion (2:6), legal persecution (2:6), and blasphemy (2:7) which 
characterizes the wealthy. 

The general idea of election ("Has not God chosen") is 
firmly rooted both in Jewish thinking (Dt. 4:37; 7:7; 14:2) and 
Christian theology (Acts 13:17; 15:7; 1 Pet. 2:9; Eph. 4:1). 
God's special care for the poor also finds a home in many OT 
writings^^'-' but is developed especially in the intertestamental 

159"My (beloved) brethren" either introduces new para- 
graphs (1:2,16,19; 2:1,14; 3:1; 4:11; 5:7,12,19) or indicates 
impassioned speech (2:5; 3:10,12; 5:9,10). 

^^%t. 15:7-11; Pss . 9:18; 12:5; 40:18(17); 70:5; 86:1; 
109:22,31; 140:13(12); Jer . 20:13. 


period where the term "poor" becomes a designation for the 
pious. 1^^ James points to two aspects of this chosen blessedness 
promised to the poor: 1) the temporal blessing of being rich in 
faith; and 2) the eschatological reward of being heirs of the 
kingdom . The two datives tS koojiu^^-^ and eu rriaxeL have proven 
difficult to interpret. Poor "in the world" can be understood as 
a dative of advantage ("before the world" )1^3 or as a dative of 
respect ("in worldly goods"). l^^ "in faith" forms the antithesis 
to "in the world". If ev niaxei means "rich within the sphere or 
realm of faith", ^^^ then xu koctjuS is a dative of advantage. On 
the other hand, if ev ttlctxgl means "rich with regard to faith" 
then "poor in the world" would be a dative of respect, "poor in 
worldly goods". ^^^ Dibelius argues against this latter pos- 
sibility saying, "for then faith would be conceived as some sort 
of compensation for earthly poverty, whereas this compensation 
actually consists in the claim to the heavenly inheritance . "^^"^ 
James, however, consistently thinks in concrete realities. 
Therefore, he is speaking here of being poor in worldly goods 
themselves (dative of respect). 168 r^j^^ poor not only have a pros- 

l^^Sir. 10:22-24; Ps . Sol. 5:2,13; 1 En. 108:7-10; IQpHab 

162rp]^Q variants ev x$ Koa^w and xou Koajaou offer an 
emendational smoothing of the text. 

l^^Davids, James, 112 thus says, "The world sees only 
their poverty; God sees their exalted state because of his elec- 
tion ..." Fritz Reinecker and Cleon L. Rogers Jr , A Linguistic 
Key to the Greek New Tes tament , 382 call this an ethical dative 
as does Mayor, James, 82. 

164^2go called a dative of reference by Moulton and 
Turner, Grammar, III: 238. 

l°°Dibelius, Davids, Grosheide, Mayor, Ropes. 

l^^Cantinat, Laws, Moule , Schoeps. 

l^^Dibelius and Greeven, James , 138. 

l^^The use is similar to Hermas' description of the poor 
as "rich in intercession" (ttAouctloc; ev tp evxeuSet) in Sim. 2:5. 


pect of reward In the future, but in fact their rich heritage is 
already evident in the faith they now possess. 

With this as background we will discuss the relationship 
of Jas . 2:5 to the gospel parallels. There are some exegetical 
details which might initially thrust one in the direction of 
denying the presence of a dominical saying. If James was con- 
sciously thinking of a saying of Jesus, he nowhere makes it 
obvious; there is no introductory formulation as with the quota- 
tions from the OT. Secondly, the wording does not exactly paral- 
lel any knov^n saying of Jesus. Jas. 2:5 is not set in the 
paKotpcoQ format although such an introduction is familiar to 
James (1:12,25; 5:11). It is God the Father who has chosen the 
poor to be heirs of the kingdom rather than Jesus. In addition 
to the gospel contrast between poverty in this age and wealth in 
the age to come, James inserts the additional contrast of being 
poor in worldly goods vs. rich in faith. Thirdly, the election 
of the poor to a blessed future was a common theme in the recent 
history of Judaism. ^^^ 

Spitta is so convinced by the similarities with Jewish 
thought that he confidently asserts that if one could somehow 
show Jas. 2:5 to be dependent upon a logion of Jesus, then one 
could legitimately be convinced that James throughout his epistle 
alludes to Jesus' sayings, l"^*-* Likewise, Meyer believes that 
James is drawing on the teaching of the Psalms (37:11,22-23; 

l^^Cf. Ernst Bammel, s.v. TTpuxoQ, TDNT, VI: 895 and the 
references we have previously mentioned. 

l^'^Spitta, Zur Geschichte, II: 164 


112:9) rather than Jesus, l"^! Certainly Mt . 5:5 is based upon Ps . 
37:11 ("But the meek shall possess the land"), yet Jas . 2:5 with 
its mention of the kingdom as the gift for the poor is closer to 
Jesus' beatitude in Mt. 5:3. Of critical importance is the 
recognition that there are no references in the OT , inter- 
testamental literature, or the Talmud specifically saying that 
God gives the kingdom to the poor. This fact makes it unlikely 
that a Jewish source rather than a saying of Jesus was in James' 

James is definitely appealing to his readers' previous 
knowledge; in the rhetorical question, "Has not God chosen the 
poor , . . , " James assumes that his audience is already aware of 
the teaching being presented. If not the OT , perhaps the 
church's ethical teaching is the source of James' statement. The 
church did experience itself as the physically poor and foolish, 
the lowly and despised of the world. Paul's comments at 1 Cor, 
1:26-28 indicate that specifically in this condition of lowliness 
were the churches made mindful of their election: "God chose what 
is foolish ... weak ... low and despised." Paul even employs 
words that resemble closely those of Jas. 2:5: ^KAeyu , 9e6c,, 
K6crp.oc,. The added clause in James, "which he has promised to 
those who love him, " could in fact derive from a Christian hymn 
since this phrase already occurs at Jas. 1:12 and in a quote from 
an unknown source at 1 Cor. 2:9.1'^2 Rather than establishing a 

I'^^Meyer, Rat§M' 85. He also refers to 1 Sam. 2:8 and 
PSS. Sol. 5:12; 15:2. 

172pQ^ similar references in the LXX and intertestamental 
literature see Dibelius and Greeven, James, 89, n. 110. 


dependence upon a written Pauline source, ^'^3 ^-^q similarities of 
content and vocabulary point to the unforgettable memory of 
poverty in the early church. In addition to Paul and James, Rev. 
2:9 ("I know your tribulation and your poverty, but you are 
rich") witnesses to this common experience. 

As James is pondering this familiar experience of the 
church, he is apparently reminded of Jesus' promise of an 
eschatological kingdom to such a poor people as this and thus 
appends this afterthought to his main point that God has chosen 
the poor to be rich in faith. The decisive clue for the presence 
of a saying of Jesus lies in the fact that the word "kingdom" is 
not Jamesian vocabulary; Jas , 2:5 is the one and only occurrence 
of this term in the epistle. 1"^^ Certainly the employment of a 
term particularly associated with the preaching of Jesus is evi- 
dence that James is alluding to the same saying quoted in Mt . 5:3 
and Lk. 6:20. This is confirmed by the fact that even critical 
exegetes like Dibelius and Laws^^^ admit the probability that 
James is consciously referring to a logion previously spoken by 
Jesus. Furthermore, exegetes who frequently perceive allusions 
to Jesus' sayings in the Epistle of James are sure about this 
particular case: "Jesus' declaration is certainly behind James's 
statement," states Davids; ^'^^ "But there is no doubt that James 

I'^^Cf. Bammel, s.v. tttwxoq, TDNT, VI: 911, n. 241. 

I'^^K and A read e-nayyeXiac, following Heb. 6:17 according 
to Nestle-Aland. However, a more doctrinal reason might lie 
behind this change since the new reading does not limit the king- 
dom to the poor. 

^'^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 132; Laws, James, 103- 

^"^^Davids, James, 111. 


was directly inspired by a dominical word like Luke 6:20," adds 
Adamson .177 

James does not stand in the tradition of either Matthew 
or Luke. James' view of poverty is literal unlike Matthew's 
emphasis upon the religious quality of lowliness in his express- 
ion "poor in spirit". James' perspective is closer to Luke's, -'•78 
but the wording is divergent with Luke choosing the full express- 
ion "kingdom of God". Adamson believes that "the mention of 
inheritance in Jas . 2:5, not so expressed in Matt, 5:3 or Luke 
6:20, probably represents the more accurate form of the testimony 
to the words of Jesus. "179 However, the popularity of the 
expression "to inherit the kingdom" in the early church (Gal, 
5:21; 1 Cor , 6:9-10; 15:50) as well as the distinctive wording 
{taxlu rj ^aaiXeia) in both gospel recensions speaks against this 
opinion. Instead we perceive an historical development from the 
time of Jesus. The experience of the church is evident in the 
mentioning of the constituency of the group as poor, in the 
similarity to Paul's words at 1 Cor. 1:26, in the phrase "to 
those who love him", and in the two stage eschatology of 
James, 1^0 Therefore, clearly evident in this verse is a combina 
tion of the church's experience with a promise of Jesus. l^l 

177jj^{3ajjjson, James, 110. 

-'•^^Laws, James, 103 contends that James does not reward 
poverty per se as Luke does in Lk. 6:20 and 16:19-25 in the case 
of Lazarus. But this is reading too much into Luke's account. 

179Adamson, James , 109-110, 

•'•^'^The wealth of the future kingdom is already exhibited 
in the richness of faith among those who believe in Jesus. 

■'•^-'•Davids, Jajtes, 111 concurs with this view when he 
explains, "That the aorist tgeKeB,axo is used might refer to some 
eternal election of God ( Eph . 1:4) but probably refers to the 
declarations of Jesus and reflects the constituency of the 
church. " 


3.2 Jas. 2:8 Mt , 22:36,39 par. Lev. 19:18b 

el ijevzoi •^^SiSaaKaXe , 

i:;_oiiou xeAetxe (iaaiKLKOi' no'ia evxoAn peyaAn 
Kaxcr xriJ/ ypaipnu • kv xu vo}Xhi; 

^^ 6evxepa sk. 6p.oia avxr}' 

kqAOq TTOLecxe- iyu eu^TtTKup loq . 

In order to compare Jas. 2:8 with the gospel parallels, 
we must discuss the most complicated and controversial part of 
James' theology, his view of the law. James' conception of the 
law is summarized by the three terms — royal law (2:8), perfect 
law (1:25), and law of liberty (1:25; 2:12). The description of 
the law as royal can have various connotations: 1) the law from a 
king ( Adamson) ; ^^2 2) the sovereign or supreme law which governs 
all others (Hort, MuBner); 3) the law which is set for kings or 
the law with royal authority (Dibelius, Zahn) ; and 4) the lav^7 of 
the kingdom (Davids, Mayor, Ropes, Windisch) . By calling this 
"the law of the King of Kings", Adamson^S'^ may have made this 
passage more upbuilding for today's audience, but his interpreta- 
tion goes beyond the givens of the text. As Laws explains. 

It is unlikely that the description of the law as royal 
involves anything so specific as a recognition of Jesus as 
the king who has promulgated the law, especially as it is God 
who is said to promise the kingdom in ii. 5 ( cf . iv . 12: 
there is only one lawgiver, clearly God).!^'^ 

Hort and MuBner ' s suggestion is attractive since it can easily be 

tied to Jesus' teaching of a first and second commandment. But 

IS^Karl L. Schmidt, s.v. paaiKeLa, TDNT, I: 591 also 
states that the royal law "signifies the law as given by the 
ISaaiAeiic; , " but he perceives a reference to God as king rather 
than Jesus Christ as Adamson, James, 114-115. 

^^^Adamson, James, 114-115. 

-'•^'^Laws, James, 110. 


Laws is again correct when she discerns that "this strains the 
meaning of the adjective, which never seems to have been used in 
the sense of "governing' ,.."185 Dibelius appeals to Stoic 
oriented Jewish texts where law is compared to sovereign reason, 
royal roads, or the king's position of authority . 186 j^ q^j, 
opinion, it seems more natural to compare the term "royal" with 
the kingdom concept mentioned in James' immediate context (2:5), 
Since Jas . 2:8 begins a Biblical argument continuing the 
theological and experiential arguments of 2:4-7,18"^ it seems 
plausible that the adjective pao-tAcKoy is related to the noun 
paoLAe La. 188 xhis is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria's sub- 
stitution of "you will not be royal" for "you will never enter 
the kingdom of God" in Mt . 5:20.189 Finally, Jas. 2:5 and 2:8 are 
connected by an emphasis on love: the kingdom is promised to 
those who love Him (2:5), and the love command is recited 
immediately following the mention of the royal law in 2:8. 

The content of the royal law has been variously described 
as 1) the whole OT law; 2) the moral law; or 3) the specific 
ordinance of Lev. 19:18. This dispute traces back to the diffi- 
culty in determining the exact relationship between the royal law 

185ibid. , 109. 

186Dibelius and Greeven, Jaines,- 143. The appeal is made 
to 4 Mac. 14:2; Philo, Post. Cain. 101-102; Spec . Le^. 4:147; 
Vit. Mos, 2:4; CI, Alex., Strom . '7,73,5, 

18'^The use of iieuxoL points out that James is not 
beginning a new topic, 

188cf, Kendall, James and Judaic Christianity, 67. 

"^^^-S^tro,!- 6,164,2 ovi<-^ Fcreaee paocALKoT Tnstead of ov ^n 
elaeAerjTe elc; xr/v ISaaiAeiau xuu ovpauuu. Otto Stahlin, GC^S 17,2, 
p. 516, line 21. 


of 2:8a and the love command of 2:8b, The first view^^O ^g sup- 
ported by the usual distinction between vofjoQ as the whole law 
and tvzoXr] as one or more distinct commandments within the law. 
The term eyxoAn is employed with the love command in Mk , 12:28, 
Mt . 22:36, and Jn, 15:12. Since vopoQ instead of evxoAn is used 
in Jas . 2:8, one could conclude that the whole OT law is 
intended , 1 ^ -'• Laws contends that xeAeu (2:8) is the more 
appropriate verb to refer to the whole law (Rom. 2:27), while 
xriP^u) would be expected for individual precepts (Mt, 19 : 17f ) . ■'■^^ 
Against this suggestion, however, is the use of xnp£w in Jas. 
2:10 to refer to the whole law. Therefore, James does not work 
with this distinction although the scribal emendations at 2:10 
show that many scribes disapproved. ^^^ The difficulty in ascer- 
taining whether James employs the more important distinction 
between voiioc, and ex/xoAn stems from his failure to use the terra 
tvxoAn anywhere in the epistle. ^^^ Since we do encounter excep- 
tions to this rule at Rom. 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:39 t.r.. Num. 9:12, and 

190pQ-f, a list of well-known supporters of this view see 
Victor P. Furnish, The Love £ommand in t^he New Testament , 178, n. 
35. Walter Gutbrod, s.v. poiioc,, TDNT, IV: 1081 argues against 
this position stating that the "general attitude of the epistle 
and the context of the verse are against the interpretation that 
it is the whole Old Testament law with all its commandments that 
is in mind. " 

l^^Cf. Davids, James, 114 and Dibelius and Greeven, 
James, 142. 

192^3^3^ James, 107-108. 

193xeAeo-eL "ffi, 81, 945, 1241, 2298; TrArjpwo-e i. : A, 614, 630, 
1505, 2426, 2495, 

^^'*In 2:10 James uses the phrase eu ev i without a noun. 
If the phrase modifies xbv uoiiou , then James does not distinguish 
between u6]ioc, and evxoAr'] since uoixoc, would apply here to a single 
commandment. Howev'er , the contrast in the verse makes it likely 
that James is referring to one command of the law, and if he sup- 
plied a noun, it might be ^vxoAr7 or Aoyw as in Gal. 5:14 6 yap 
ttSc; voixoc, eu evl Aoyu jrenXfipiJxaL . 


Jer. 31:33 (38:33 LXX ) , this distinction may not function in 
James' thinking. 

Furnish, one of the foremost supporters of the second 
view, argues that the moral law rather than the love command is 
given prominence by James. He points out that the love command- 
ment is not identified with pure religion in Jas . 1:26-27 as one 
might expect, nor are the clothing and feeding of a needy brother 
and sister (2:15-16) mentioned as an application of the love com- 
mand as in 1 Jn. 3:17.195 within the present context it is spe- 
cifically the moral laws against adultery and murder (2:11) that 
are singled out. Furthermore, the other designations, "perfect 
law" and "law of liberty," can be applied more easily to the 
moral law in distinction from the ceremonial and civil legisla- 
tion. Therefore, the background for James' thinking is often 
traced back to a Jewish evaluation of Lev. 19 as a counterpart of 
the Decalogue and a summary of the whole Torah.^^® 

The third view states that the royal law is the love com- 
mand itself. Since the phrase Koxa xriu ypaipinu is positioned 
immediately after ^aaiAiKOv , the natural implication of the 
preposition Kax6 (meaning "corresponding to") would be that the 
royal law and Lev. 19:18 correspond. In this case either 1) the 
distinction between vopioQ and eyxoAn does not hold true for James 
(an exception like Rom, 7:2); or 2) a new distinction must be 
drawn between udnoQ with the definite article referring to the 
whole law and the anarthrous usage indicating a particular com- 

l^^Furnish, Love Command, 182 
l^^Cf, ch. 2, section 2,1. 


mand;19'^ or 3) the precept itself (Lev. 19:18) has been accorded 
such an exalted position in the new law of the church that the 
term vopoQ could without difficulty be applied to a single com- 
mand. ^^^ In our opinion, James employs the definite and anar- 
throus forms interchangeably , 1®^ The article is lacking here as 
well as in 2:11,12 and 4:11, the last of which certainly refers 
to the whole law and not an individual precept. Therefore, the 
key must be seen in the fact that Lev. 19:18 was considered a 
comprehensive rule in Christian circles. The connection with 
"kingdom" in 2 : 5 identifies Lev. 19:18 as the law of the kingdom 
and assigns the text a prominence similar to that given it by 
Jesus (Mk. 12:28-34 par.) and Paul (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 5:14). 

If the whole law were in James' mind, then royal would 
probably indicate surpassing significance comparable to a king's 
position of authority. If the moral law were meant, then royal 
would mean supreme and sovereign. Our dismissal of these views 
argues in favor of an identification of the love command with the 
royal law. One problem with saying that the love command sum- 
marizes or fulfils the royal law is the fact that the subject of 
zeAeZze is not this scripture (xny ypa$nv) but James' audience 

^^'^Cf, Grosheide, Jakgbus, 373; Adamson, James, 114-115; 
and Richard H. Poss, The Articular and Anarthrous Con struction in 
the Epist le of James, 102. MuBner, Jakobus , 126 explains the 
anarthrous noun as a Semitism. This could apply to 2:11 where a 
Hebrew infinitive construct can be discerned but cannot explain 
the anarthrous nouns at 4:11. Ropes, Jajnes, 198 claims the arti- 
cle is omitted because vSiioq, is treated as a quasi-proper noun, 
but this fails to explain why the article is sometimes included. 

l^^Hort, James , 54, 

l^^This applies to James' use of the terms "Lord" (cf. 
below, section 4.5) and "law". For examples in Paul see Moulton 
and Turner, Grammar, III: 177. 


( second person plural). However, this argument can be dismissed 
if one assumes that Jas, 2:10 ("For whoever keeps the whole law") 
refers back to the keeping of the love command in 2:8 so that the 
love command would summarize the whole law. At any rate, one 
must admit that James nowhere explicitly states that love meets 
the demands of the whole law as Paul does. If such thinking is 
present, it can only be deduced by inference. 

In our opinion, the disagreement over the content of the 
royal law stems from the fact that Lev. 19:18 is for James both 
one commandment among all the injunctions of the moral law and at 
the same time the most important of these commandments. Formally 
it occupies a place of superior rank but materially it stands 
only as one commandment among many. 2 00 jajjies ' view of Lev, 19:18 
is similar to Matthew's; Matthew refers to love of God and neigh- 
bor as the summarizing command for the law and prophets (Mt. 
22:37-40) and yet at the same time lists Lev. 19:18 as only one 
command among the moral injunctions of the Decalogue (Mt. 19:18- 
19), With this understanding James' argument in 2:8-11 becomes 
clear. Jas. 2:8a ("If you really fulfil the royal law") refers 
to the love command found in Lev. 19:18 which during the first 
century had begun to summarize the whole law. Jas. 2:9 ("But if 
you show partiality") remembers Lev. 19:15, a command in the 
original context of the love command. Jas. 2:10 then refers to 
each of these commands in order: "whoever keeps the whole law" is 
an allusion to the comprehensive love command of 2:8 while "but 
fails on one point" refers to the failure to keep Lev. 19:15 

2^^Cf. Jack Sanders, Ethics i,n the New Testament, 124 


alluded to in 2:9.201 .jq follow the love command while breaking 
one of the injunctions which it summarizes makes one guilty of 
breaking every law. Then Jas . 2:11 employs two commands from the 
Decalogue as Jas. 2:8-9 had drawn two injunctions from Lev. 19, 
pointing out again that the failure to keep only one of these 
precepts results in being guilty of all the injunctions. Thus 
the love command is understood by James both in the OT sense as 
one command among many and in the contemporary NT sense as the 
comprehensive summary of the Torah. 

There is a growing consensus that the three descriptions 
of the law as perfect, royal, and liberty are used synonymously 
in James. 202 ^q will now examine James' usage of "the perfect law 
of liberty" (1:25; 2:12) to determine whether the meaning and 
content of this phrase confirm the conclusions already reached 
about the royal law. As with the royal law, the perfect law of 
liberty can be understood against various backgrounds of thought, 
Dibelius detects a background in Stoic ideas where perfect would 
be understood as the demands of eternal nature and freedom as the 
result of a life obedient to the cosmic Reason. 203 j^ must be 
admitted that James utilizes technical religious terminology from 

20lLaws, James , 108 attempts to defend the thesis that 
vdiioc, refers to the single love commandment in v. 8 by separating 
2:10 from 2:1-9. The argument is faulty since Jas, 2:8-9 and 
2:11 contain parallel examples from Lev. 19 and the Decalogue 
which both illustrate the same point. Thus keeping the law in 
its entirety is already in James' mind in 2:8-9. 

^OSp-Qpnish, Love Command , 180; Gutbrod, s.v. vopoQ, TDNT, 
IV: 1082. 

203i3j^l3eiius and Greeven, James , 116-118 refer to Philo, 
OE- Mund 3; Vijt. Mos. 2:48; 4 Mac. 14:2; Epictetus, Diss. 4,1, 
158; Cicero, Paras. 34; and Seneca, Vi t . Beat. 15:7. 


the Graeco-Roman world, 204 ■^■^^■\- -j-hg content of these terms always 
remains within the Jewish-Christian world of thought. Some have 
discerned parallels in Pauline literature such as Rom. 8:2: "the 
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from 
the law of sin and death." But the contrast between freedom 
through the gospel and the bondage of the law at the heart of 
Pauline theology {Rom. 3:28) is nowhere evident in the Epistle of 
James. Neither does the term ^Aeu^epca entail independence from 
the law as in Paul (Gal. 5:1-4), The OT legislation provides a 
better conceptual background since the Jewish law is called per- 
fect205 Qj-^(3 ■t-];^g jQy experienced in observing the law^OS gave the 
participant a sense of freedom, 207 

The weight of evidence points to a background in OT con- 
cepts supported by, but also interpreted by, the teaching of 
Jesus. An attitude of love (2:8) and mercy (2:12-13) free from 
outward coercion gives the OT law its perfect liberating quality. 
"So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law 
of liberty" (2:12) thus refers to the law of love In 2:8 which 
sets people free to show mercy to their neighbors (2:13). Inward 
voluntariness rather than outward constraint^OS guarantees that 

204Qf_ Dibelius and Greeven, James , 21 and above, ch. 1, 
n, 99. 

205ps. 19:7 (18:8 LXX a^KOfioc;); Arist. 31 (ovaac, eeiav). 
TeAeCoQ is Jamesian vocabulary. 

206ps, 1.2; 19:7-11; 40:6-8; 119; Sir. 6:23-31; 51:13-22. 

207pg_ 119:32,45 (enlargement); Aboth 3:5 (take away the 
yoke of worldly care); *6:2; b. Baba Metzia 85b. The word 
i^Xeudenia is always associated in the LXX with physical freedom 
from slavery and bondage (Lev. 19:20; 1 Es . 4:49,53; Sir. 7:21; 
33:25; 1 Mac. 14:27; 3 Mac. 3:28). 

20Sa freedom from ceremonial prescriptions in contrast to 
ethical obligations could also be in James' mind since nowhere 
does he espouse the practices of the Jewish ceremonial law. 


the perfect law is a law of liberty. This does not imply, 
however, that the OT commands no longer need to be observed. We 
have seen that James like Matthew can point to love as the most 
important and comprehensive of commands and yet include it along- 
side the other injunctions of the Decalogue. James has trans- 
ferred the OT commandments into the church age in order to 
undergird the perfect, royal law of liberty with practical 
implications. If one "looks into" and "perseveres" (1:25) in 
this Christianized law, "he will be blessed in his doing." Thus 
in the church's ethical instruction the moral laws of the OT are 
set alongside the love command of Jesus as the guide for life. 

It is really a rather simple undertaking to answer the 
question whether Jas . 2:8 is alluding to Jesus' summary of the 
law found in Mt . 22:36-40 par. James states himself that he is 
quoting scripture; therefore, he is recalling Lev. 19:18b, not 
any saying of Jesus. 209 what is more difficult to determine is 
whether this commandment has been given prominence because of the 
summary position that Jesus gave to the love command. James 
nowhere combines the love of God (Dt. 6:5) with the love of the 
neighbor as Jesus had done. Neither does he specifically state 
that the law of love fulfils or summarizes all the other laws as 
Paul in Rom. 13:8-10. Yet the special designation given to the 
content of Lev. 19:18 (i.e. love) as the royal law implies that 
the command was given special prominence. This renoun is likely 
accounted for by the influence that the preaching of Jesus had 
upon the themes of the church's ethical teaching, Jesus 


Cf, Furnish, Love Command, 177 


proclaimed God's kingdom, and James is now teaching the laws of 

the kingdom. 210 Therefore, once again James employs a theme of 

Jesus' preaching which has entered into the paraenesis of the 

church rather than quoting a specific dominical saying. 

3.3 Jas. 2:13 Mt . 5 : 7 

r) yap Kpiaic, cxuiheoc, poKapcoc oL eKenp-Ouec, , 

xO ixt) TTOLriaauxi ,|,AeoQ " °'^'- Cfutot eKenOricjovTaL . 

KazaKavxaxai eAS.o'i KpLaeuic,. 

Jas. 2:13 serves as a proverbial summary statement and 

transition between paraenetic discourses in a similar fashion to 

2:26 and 3:11-12. It consists of two aphorisms held together by 

the catchwords, mercy and judgment. Because this verse is only 

loosely attached to the context by the catchword connection 

Kp Luea9a L / Kpicric,, it provides no special support for the 

argumentation of the preceding section. These aphorisms probably 

came to the mind of James because of the conceptual connection 

between being judged by the law of liberty (2:12) and being 

judged by the "law" of mercy here illustrated. But the sudden 

appearance of ^Aeoq along with the transition from second to 

third person conclusively demonstrates the presence of pre- 

Jamesian material used as a generalizing conclusion. Since there 

is no conjunction to suggest what type of connection exists 

between these two wisdom sayings, it is difficult to discern 

their exact relationship. The first saying is a typical piece of 

210jj^ -(-j^e Markan account Jesus says to the scribe who 
agrees with his analysis of the greatest commandment that he is 
not far from the kingdom of God, We encounter a similar connec- 
tion between Lev. 19:18 and the kingdom in Jas. 2:5,8. The com- 
mon use of KaAcjQ ttole txe ( e lq ) at Jas. 2:8,19 may indicate the 
conjunction of Dt . 6:4-5 and Lev. 19:18 made by Jesus. 


Jewish wisdom with the eschatological outcome based upon the 
quality of the human action. The second is certainly not anti- 
thetical to the first and should probably be viewed as offering a 
ground or supplying a foundation for the truth of the first 
saying. The obscure word KaxaKavxaxai. is best translated "tri- 
umph"211 similar to the RSV reading, "Mercy triumphs over judg- 
ment , " 

Turning to the relationship with the gospel parallel, we 
notice that both contain similar subject matter in a proverbial 
form. Furthermore, both couple together divine and human mercy 
and teach that the outcome of human mercy will be the return of 
divine mercy. Exegetes of the last two centuries have rated this 
as the sixth most popular parallel between the gospels and the 
Epistle of James. 

However, strong evidence against an allusion to Mt . 5:7 

is exhibited in the fact that these texts have only one word in 

common and that term, mercy, diverges in form. Whereas Mt . 5:7 

is written as a blessing, Jas . 2:13a embodies the form of a 

threat. Furthermore, the teaching that human mercy breeds a 

positive divine response (Jas. 2:13a) is popular not only in 

Jesus' teaching (cf. also Mt . 18:23-35; 6:12; Lk. 11:4) but also 

outside the limits of his influence. The Test. Zeb. 8:1-3212 


Have, therefore, yourselves also, my children, compassion 
towards every man with mercy, that the Lord also may have 

211cf. BAGD, s.v. KataKauxaopai , 401 and Rudolf Bultmann, 
s.v, eAeoQ, TDNT, III: 653-654. The variants in the textual 
tradition illustrate the confusion in understanding this word. 

2125.QP textual support see ch. 2, n. 132. 


compassion upon you .... For In the degree in which a man 
hath compassion upon his neighbors, in the same degree hath 
the Lord also upon him. 

In the Test, Zeb. 5:3 this same emphasis is visible: "Have, 
therefore, compassion (eAeoQ) in your hearts, my children, 
because even as a man doeth to his neighbor, even so also will 
the Lord do to him." In the rabbinic tradition Rabbi Barabbi 
explains, "He who is merciful to others, mercy is shown to him by 
Heaven, while he who is not merciful to others, mercy is not 
shown to him by Heaven. "213 Furthermore, the midrash from Sifre 
93b states, "So long as you have pity on men, God will have pity 
on you. "214 Finally, Piska 38 quotes Rabbi Jose as saying, "You 
may regard your compassion as a sign that God's compassion will 
follow ~~ whenever you show compassion for your fellow man, the 
Lord will show compassion for other mortals as well as you." In 
fact this principle according to Piska 38 is grounded in scrip- 
ture itself: "Scripture says further, When thou art endued with 
mercy, He has mercy upon thee (Deut. 13: 18), "215 ^hus this teach 
ing traces back to the OT where God's mercy is emphasized (Ex. 
34:5-6; Dt . 4:31; Ps . 103:8ff), and people are exhorted to show 
mercy (Jer. 9:16; Hos . 6:6; Mic . 6:8). 

213b. Shabbath 151b, ed. Epstein, 774. 

214claude G. Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and GosjBel 
Tjeachings , 23. 

^"'■^Pi.sik.ta Rabbati, tr. William G. Braude, II: 69 2-693. 
Cf. Dt , 13:17 LXX. In addition Laws, Janies, 117 quotes Pesikta 
167a as saying, "The scales are evenly balanced: the scale of 
iniquities on the one side and of merits on the other; the Holy 
One Inclines the balance to mercy"; and Ropes, James, 201 cites 
Jer. Baba Karama 7:10 as saying, "Every time that thou art merci- 
ful, God will be merciful to thee; and if thou art not merciful, 
God will not show mercy to thee," but we could not locate either 
quotation in the primary literature. 


The theme of Jas . 2:13b, the triumph of mercy over judg- 
ment, also has close Jewish parallels. Already in the OT the 
prophet Hosea proclaimed that judgment was the result of Israel's 
lack of mercy {eAeoQ Hos. 6:5,7 LXX) . In the intertestamental 
period Tobit 4:10 states, "Charity (eXet-]p.oauur}) will save you 
from death and keep you from going down into darkness." The 
writings of Philo ( Deus Immut. 76) offer another substantial 
parallel: "He tempers His judgment with mercy (x6v eXeou 
cxvaKp Luria Lu ) which He shows in doing kindness even to the 
unworthy . "216 Finally the Sibylline Oracles 2:81, written around 
the time of Jesus, explains: "Mercy saves from death when judg- 
ment comes. "217 

Authors who claim a conscious allusion to the gospel 
teaching often admit that James appeals to the general teaching 
of Jesus rather than a specific verse. Yet Mt . 5:7 is said to be 
"surely of first importance" , or "may be said to give the key to 
our verse. "218 it is true that James' theme of mercy exhibits 
more parallels with Matthew (Mt. 5:7; 9:13; 12:7; 18:29,34; 
24:45-46) than with Luke, This is accounted for, however, by 
Matthew's similar interest in Jewish background material evi- 
denced by the quoting of Hos. 6:6 on two occasions (9:13; 12:7) 
and by their common transmission of the ethical teaching of the 
church. 219 This ecclesiastical emphasis upon mercy continues in 

216colson and Whitaker, ill' LCL, 48-49. 

217ptjexaL £K 9auaxou eAeoQ, Kpiaic, bnoxav eXOr] GCS 8, p. 
30, line 81. J.J. Collins in OT Pseud. , I: 330 states that this 
section is not part of the Christian redaction. 

21 ^Davids, James, 119 and Knowling, James , 52. 

219cf. ch. 4, section 4.0. 


the Apostolic Fathers where a saying about mercy is attributed to 

Jesus and written in the format of Mt. 7:1 and Lk. 6:37-38 rather 

than Mt, 5:7. 1 CI. 13:2 states: 

eAeaxe Iva eXetTenze , capieze Iva a0e9ri vp.Zv • 

6c; TTOLeLxe, ouxu no LqOricrexai viiZv • 

iic, dLdoxe, ouxuc, SoOricrezaL u^iy* 

6c KDiueze, ovzcjc, Kpi9naea9e' 

^Q XPno"Teueo"0e , ovzuq, xpi'7O'xeu0r7aexac Vjiiu • ^"^^ 

Polycarp (Phil. 2:3) follows the same procedure when he calls his 

readers to remember the words which the Lord spoke: 

P-i) Kpiueze , Iva iir) KpiOrixe- 
cXipLeze, Kol apeBfiaezai vii'ii/ ' 
eAeaxe, lua eAen^H'ce 

These quotations contain themes drawn from the preaching of Jesus 
and placed into well-known teaching patterns such as "Judge not 
that ye be not judged" for easy memorization. 222 j^ _|g therefore 
possible that James includes the subject of mercy in his teaching 
because it was an emphasis of his master. Whatever the case, Mt . 

220Line 1 below is similar in content to Mt . 5:7; line 2 
to Mt. 6:14; line 3 to Mt . 7:12; Lk . 6:31; line 4 to Lk . 6:38; 
line 5 to Mt . 7:1-2; Lk , 6:37; line 6 to Lk . 35c-36. 

Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy. 

Forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. 

As ye do, so shall it be done to you. 

As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. 

As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. 

As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed to you. 

This is repeated as a dominical saying by CI. Alex., 
Strom. 2,91,2 (GCS 52, pp. 161-162, lines 24, 1--3) and Resch, 
Agxajgha, 197-198. 

221ji;i<jge not that ye be not judged. 
Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to you. 
Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. 
Polycarp continues by rehearsing two of the beatitudes but does 
not mention, "Blessed are the merciful." 

222ij^ I Q2. 13:2 the first two maxims employ the impera- 
tive with lua and a passive verb; the following four are struc- 
tured by WQ ... ouxwQ. Cf. Donald A. Hagner , "The Sayings of 
Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr," G_osp_e_l Per- 
spectives , 5:235. 


5:7 is certainly not consciously alluded to in Jas . 2:13, The 
best solution is to conceive of James, Jesus, intertestamental 
authors, and the Rabbis as drawing from a common tradition of 
Jewish wisdom. James concludes many of his sections with such 
proverbial statements (2:13,26; 3:11-12,18; 4:17; 5:6b, 20b) show- 
ing that this is an intrinsic characteristic of his style. 
3.4 Jas. 3:12 Mt . 7:16 Lk. 6:44 

ano xuv KapnQv avxuu eKaaxov yap deudpou 

emypucreaQe avxovc,. ck xov lc5 lou Kapnou 

pn dvuaxai, firjxL avAXeyouaLu ytvwaKeraL- 

aSe\<poi jjou , ano OKauOup ov yap eS cxKavOuJv 

auKH eAacaQ rrot naau axa(pvXac, auAAeyouCTtj^ ?_yKa 

n ajJTTeAoc, n ano xpi^oAui' ouSe ck ^axov 

_g"_UKa; ffEKo;; CTxa(puAriv xpuywCTii^. 

ovxe aAvKov yAvKU 
notriaai vSiop . 

Gospel of Thomas 45a 

"Jesus said, 'Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs 
gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit.'" 

Coptic Apocalypse of Peter 76:4-7 

"For people do not gather figs from thorns or from thorn trees, 
if they are wise, nor grapes from thistles." 

Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2,74,4^23 

"And we eat grapes from thorns (e£ oKaueui^ rpuyuiaev axa^vAnu) 
and figs from thistles (auKa cfTro paxuu) ; while those to whom He 
stretched forth His hands -- the disobedient and untruthful 
people -~ He lacerates into wounds." 

In this section James illustrates the savage nature of 

the tongue by pointing to its hellish properties (v. 6), its 

untamed unruliness (vv. 7-8), and its inconsistent behavior of 

^^'^English by William Wilson, Th® Ante-Nicene Fathers, 
II: 257; Greek from Otto Stahlin, GCS 12, p. 203, lines lOff. A 
better translation for 6(n6 (3axu)u would be "bramble bush" as in 
the RSV of Luke, For Clement the thorns represent the sins from 
which Christ has rescued us. 


blessing God while cursing those made in the likeness of God (vv. 
9-10). Jas . 3:11-12 then relates two or three similitudes from 
nature to condemn this two-sidedness of the tongue. Typical of 
this middle section of the Epistle of James (three treatises from 
2:1-3:12) is the frequent use of rhetorical questions. Jas. 3:11 
asks about the possibility of a spring pouring forth both fresh 
water and brackish, sulphurous water. Jas. 3:12a speaks about 
the impossibility of fig trees yielding olives (along with figs 
?) and grapevines bearing figs (along with grapes ?). Finally, 
3:12b repeats the metaphor used in 3:11 (salty and fresh water) 
remodeled this time after the pattern of 3:12a. All the imagery 
does not reinforce the same point. The nature parable in v. 11 
proves the unnaturalness of one spring gushing forth two types of 
water just as it is unnatural for the tongue to bless and curse 
at the same time. Jas. 3:12 proves instead the incompatibility 
of one type of tree or water producing another type. The meta- 
phors of 3:12 are more difficult to relate back to James' des- 
cription of the tongue; maybe the connection would b© that 
"inconsistency in human speech should be as much out of the ques- 
tion as it is for one tree to produce a different fruit. "224 
Another incongruity among the metaphors is the fact that blessing 
and cursing as well as fresh and salt water are mixtures of good 
and bad, but olives and figs are both considered edible 
delicacies . 

Comparing Jas. 3:12 with the gospel parallels, we dis- 
cover a remarkable diversity of images: 

2 2 4La^3^ James, 157. 


ll§-tthew and Thomas lili,ke Ja^iss 

grapes from thorns figs from thorns olives from fig tree 
figs from thistles grapes from bramble bush figs from grapevine 

Coptic Apocalypse of P.e ter Ci.ement of M exajndr i_,_a 

figs from thorns or bramble bush grapes from thorns 
grapes from thistles figs from bramble bush 

In the Q aphorism, which Matthew and Luke both place in the 
Sermon on the Mount/Plain, the sayings stand in reverse order, 
and synonyms are employed (xpLpoAoQ, /3axo<;) instead of duplicate 
wording. Clement of Alexandria follows Matthew except for the 
substitution of bramble bush for thistles in the last phrase. 
The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter stands closer to the Gospel of 
Luke at least with regard to the order of figs followed by 
grapes. Yet in each case the theme is identical: something evil 
(thorns and thistles) cannot produce something good (figs or 
grapes). In James, however, the comparison is completely dif- 
ferent: two good things are counterposed to each other. One 
might argue that James altered the wording of Jesus to fit the 
saying more appropriately into his context. Yet truthfully, the 
saying in the gospels would have more closely paralleled Jas , 
3:9-11. Jesus' comparison of delicious grapes and figs with evil 
thorns and thistles would produce a congruity of images with the 
blessing and cursing (vv. 9-10) and the fresh and brackish water 
(vv, 11,12b) of James' epistle. Surely if James would have known 
this dominical saying, he would have employed it instead of 
creating an incongruous set of metaphors at 3:12. 

Adamson, however, suggests another alternative. He 
argues that "the antecedents of Jas. 3 possibly and perhaps prob- 


ably are not Matthew and Luke as we have them, but personal expe- 
rience or first-hand accounts at the beginning of the traditions 
from which Matthew and Luke are variously derived." It is true 
that Luke and Matthew exhibit enough divergencies from each other 
to conjecture the possibility that this saying was transmitted in 
quite variant forms. Furthermore, the logion is inserted into 
different contexts225 ^^y Matthew and Luke so as to leave the 
impression that it could as well be introduced into yet another 
context as we have in Jas . 3. Yet the fact that James compares 
two good objects while the Jesus-traditlon within and outside the 
Biblical literature consistently compares good and evil objects 
argues against any conjecture of a common tradition. 

The teaching of Jesus is not the only source from which 
James could have drawn this analogy. The discovery in Greek lit- 
erature of sayings closer to the Epistle of James in both content 
and purpose renders it more likely that James' saying traces back 
to the everyday experience of the people living around the Medi- 
terranean Sea. Widespread within contemporary literature is the 
use of the imagery of a plant which only produces according to 
its own nature. 226 .jj^g closest parallels are the statements of: 

1) Plutarch: "But as it is, we do not expect the vine to bear 
figs nor the olive grapes." (Trang. 13); 227 

225Lu]^e applies the saying to the evil desires of the 
heart from which the mouth speaks while Matthew is concerned with 
false prophets. Hort, James , 79 allegorizes Jas. 3:11 so that 
Trrjyr? represents the heart and thus claims a similar context with 
Luke . 

226Qif_ Dibelius and Greeven, James, 204. 

227^^0. Helmbold, PlutarchJ^s Moralia VI, LCL, 212-213. 
vdv 6e xnv iiev ap-neAov cruKa (pepeiu ouk a^ Lov}iep ov6e xnu eAaiav 
Povpvc, • 


2) Epictetus: "Such a powerful and invincible thing is the nature 
of man. For how can a vine be moved to act, not like a vine, but 
like an olive, or again an olive to act, not like an olive, but 
like a vine? It is impossible; inconceivable ." (D^iss. 2,20,18); 228 

3) Seneca: "Good does not spring from evil any more than figs 
grow from olive trees." (Ep. 87: 25). 229 

Hunzinger and Dibelius^SO believe that such Stoic traditions are 

the source of the proverb in Jas . 3:12. In each case two good 

things are compared as in James, and the thorns and thistles of 

the gospel parallels are not mentioned. Davids counters this 

suggestion with three arguments: 1) the Stoic parallels are not 

close enough in context; 2) similar proverbial illustrations must 

have been common over the whole Mediterranean area; and 3) the 

oral form of Jesus' teaching may have been the basis for James' 

ideas, 231 Against Davids, we believe that the similarities of the 

parallels listed above as well as their corresponding contexts 

prove that Dibelius has unearthed closer parallels to James than 

the saying of Jesus from Mt. 7:16; Lk. 6:46. To be sure none of 

the authors are speaking about the tongue, but both Plutarch and 

Epictetus are calling attention to impossible phenomena similar 

2 2 8pg,A. oidfather, Epictetus I, LCL, 376-377. ^ outojq 
laxupov XL Kal au LKriz6i> ecrxLv i) 4>uctlq r} auOpuin iuti . ttuq yap 
dvuaxai aiineKoQ jin a/jTreAiKuc; Ki-ueZcxdai , crAA' eAauKUQ, t) ehaia 
ndcxiu p.ri eAatKUQ orAA' crfirreAtKuc; ; apnxcfvoi^ , aSiauori'^ov .... 

229r,m. Gummere, Seneca: Epistulae Morales II, LCL, 336-- 
33 7. Bultmann, Syno^Hc Tradition, 202, n. 1 presents cor- 
responding Arabic proverbs, but they are of minimal value. 

230ciaus-Hunno Hunzinger, s.v. cjvkpi , TDNT, VII: 755; 
Dibelius and Greeven, James, 204. 

23lDavids, James, 148. We have already addressed David's 
third argument when we countered Adamson ' s claim above. 


to Jas. 3:11-12.232 pavids ' second point, however, has weighty 
consequences for Dibelius's conjecture of a specifically Stoic 
background. Would Dibelius argue that these Stoic writers were 
quoting each other's literature when they transmit this proverb? 
Of course not! Such a saying had become a common everyday 
expression in the Mediterranean world where olive and fig trees 
abounded. The source for James' nature parable is then directly 
related to the cultural experiences and everyday wisdom sayings 
of James' community and not any specific quote of Jesus or a 
Stoic writer. The paraenetic tradition of the church thus 
included everyday wisdom and analogies from nature as well as 
Jewish wisdom, specific dominical sayings, and the important 
themes of Jesus' preaching. 

4.0 The Disciplinary Exhortations of Jas. 3:13-4:10(12) 
A. 3:13-18 Disciplinary exhortation about wisdom. 

1. 3:13 Question and Answer. 

a, 3:13a Question: Who is wise? 

b. 3:13b Answer: The one who displays works of wisdom. 

2. 3:14-16 The false lifestyle: False works of wisdom. 

a. 3:14 Characteristics: Jealousy and selfish ambition. 

b. 3:15 Source: Wisdom that is earthly, unspiritual, devilish 

c. 3:16 The accepted teaching: Jealousy and selfish ambition 

breed disorder and every vile practice. 

3. 3:17 Seven characteristics of the true lifestyle: Seven 

qualities of wisdom from above. 

1) pure; 2) peaceable; 3) gentle; 4) open to reason; 

5) full of mercy; 6) Impartial; 7) sincere. 

4. 3:18 Generalizing conclusion as a transition: Righteousness 

232p2utarch begins ch . 13 by explaining, "There are, 
indeed, some pursuits which cannot by their very nature exist 
together, but rather are by nature opposed to each other." Epic- 
tetus, p_iss. 2,20,19 states that it is impossible to erase sexual 
desires by cutting off sexual organs. Seneca's context is closer 
to the gospel parallels where good does not result from evil. 


is sown m peace. 
B. 4:1-10 Disciplinary exhortation about humility. 

1. 4:1 Question and Answer. 

a. 4:1a Question: What causes fighting? 

b. 4:1b Answer: Passions. 

2. 4:2-6 The false lifestyle: Quarrels and lust. 

a. 4:2-3 Characteristics: Desire, jealousy, fighting 

b. 4:4 Source: Friendship with the world, 

c. 4:5-6 The accepted teaching: What scripture says. 

1) 4:5 Scripture warns about the envy of the human spirit. 

2) 4:6 God gives grace only to the humble (Prov. 3:34). 

3. 4:7-10 Seven characteristics of the true lifestyle: Seven 

paraenetic exhortations 

a. 4:7a Submit yourselves to God. 

b. 4:7b Resist the devil. 

c. 4:8a Draw near to God. 

d. 4:8b Purify your hands and hearts. 

e. 4:9a Be wretched and mourn and weep. 

f. 4:9b Let your laughter be turned to mourning and joy to 


g. 4:10 Humble yourselves. 

4. 4:11-12 Transition: Exhortation about judging. 

Two Types of Wisdom 
Origin : earthly, unspiritual, devilish 3:15 

from above 3:17 

Characteristics : jealousy, 

selfish ambition 3:14 




every vile practice 3:16 

Two Types of Lifestyles 

passions or pleasures 4:1 
friendship with world 4:4 

pure, peaceable, 
gentle, open to 
reason, full of 
mercy, undivided, 
without hypocrasy 

harvest of right- 
eousness 3:18 

Characteristics : wars, fightings 4:1 
Result: enemy of God 4:4 

God ' s grace 4 : 6 
humility 4:6,10 
exalted 4:10 

It is significant that James does not begin 3:13 with his 
normal address, "my beloved brethren." This omission reveals a 


change in the literary aim of the author within the genre of 
paraenesis. The discourses of 2:1-3:12 are now followed by dis- 
ciplinary exhortations where the audience is addressed as adul- 
teresses (4:4) and double-minded sinners (4:8) rather than 
brethren. This section consists of two disciplinary exhortations 
with a parallel structure. Each begins with a question and ans- 
wer (3:13; 4:1), the only formal difference being that the reply 
of 4:1b is in the form of a rhetorical question. Unchristian 
behavior patterns are then described under the headings false 
wisdom (3:14-16) and a false Christian lifestyle filled with 
quarrels and lust (4:2-6). In each case the negative character- 
istics are rehearsed (3:14; 4:2-3), the source of this counter- 
feit lifestyle is exposed (3:15; 4:4), and the godly alternative 
is supported by a quote from the accepted teaching. This des- 
cription of the false lifestyle is then contrasted with the char- 
acteristics of sanctioned behavior. In 3:17 seven qualities of 
wisdom from above are enumerated; in 4:7-10, a section enclosed 
by the concept of humility as an envelope technique (4:6,10), 
seven exhortations call the community to Christian attributes . 233 
Finally, both sections end with generalizing conclusions that 
function as transitional statements. Jas , 3:18 is an aphorism 
connected by catchword to the previous context (Kapnuv / Kapnoc,; 
elpnviKti / elpnuin) and by means of the thematic contrast of peace 

233j^g,y]3e ^YiQ enumeration of seven exhortations from the 
ten imperatives of 4:7-10 is excessive exegesis,, but certainly 
this series parallels 3:17. Davids, James, 165 envisions a 
series of couplets but humility (4:6,10) is the main topic rather 
than submission (4:7) and 9a does not balance 9b but they are 
separate statements. The parallelism is, instead, within the 
exhortations rather than between them. 


(3:18) and war (4:1) to the second disciplinary exhortation which 
follows. Jas . 4:10 serves as a generalizing conclusion for 4:1- 
10, while 4:11-12 is a transitional saying before the two pro- 
phetic denunciations against the merchants (4:13-17) and the rich 
(5:1-6) . 
4 . 1 Jas .3:18 Mt . 5 : 9 

Kapnoq, 3e 6 LKaioavuiric, yiaKapioi 
^^ £l.fiJ2ii!7 cmeLpexaL 

oxc avxol ulol deov KAnOfiaovxoi . 
In a similar fashion to Jas, 2:13 an isolated preexistent 
saying is loosely tied to the previous context to give the flow 
of thought a parabolic type ending. If James himself had origi- 
nated this material, then the expected subject of the sentence 
would have been the "fruit of wisdom" rather than the "fruit of 
righteousness" since wisdom is the central theme of the whole 
paragraph. Further confirmation for preexistent material comes 
from the catchword connection (KapnSu / Kapnoq, ■,^^^ elpiiu LKrj / 
elpr}uri) and the fact that this saying "possesses an independent 
wholeness and inclusiveness in form". 235 This does not mean, 
however, that all conceptual ties are missing. The emphasis on 
peace in 3:18 continues the theme of the peaceable wisdom from 
above in 3:17 and offers a contrast to the lifestyle of fighting 
mentioned in 4:1. Furthermore, just as 3:16 (following a des- 
cription of earthly wisdom) indicates that jealousy and selfish 
ambition produce every vile practice, so here (after a descrip- 

2'^'^Although "fruit" can be employed both in its singular 
and plural forms to indicate the same thing, the difference here 
is another indication of a preexistent saying. 

^^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 208. 


tion of heavenly wisdom) James teaches that peace produces 
righteousness , 

Every phrase in Jas, 3:18 is saturated with exegetical 
perplexities. Kapnoc, usually entails the full-grown fruit to be 
harvested, but Prov. 11:30 LXX^^^ speaks about the fruit seed 
rather than the ripe fruit. Since the fruit seed corresponds 
more appropriately with the metaphor of sowing, the meaning here 
might be, "The seed of righteousness is sown in peace. "237 on the 
other hand, an aphorism in the present tense often refers to an 
event which has repeatedly happened in the past and is expected 
in the future. The saying would then be more correctly trans- 
lated, "The harvest (ripe fruit) of righteousness is always sown 
in peace." The complete phrase "fruit of righteousness" has also 
been interpreted in various ways; it is best understood either as 
1) a genitive of origin (possession) whereby the fruit springs 
from righteousness; or 2) an epexegetical genitive (BDF 167 
appositive genitive) so that the fruit consists in righteousness. 
If the former is postulated, then righteousness has itself a 
fruit. Ropes and Laws believe that this fruit is wisdom, thus 
tying the saying intricately with the context . 238 However, the 
identification of the fruit as righteousness has rightly become 
the most popular view239 based on the overwhelming use of the 

236irout of the fruit of righteousness grows a tree of 
life." ( ^K KapTTov 3 iKaiocxvuirjC, (pvezai devSpou ^uhq). 

2'3'^Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James, 208. 

238j^Qpgg^ James- 251; Laws, James , 166 interprets Prov. 
3:18 and 11:30 together since both refer to the tree of life and 
James displays knowledge of Prov. 3 at Jas. 4:6. Meyer, Rats.®..!' 
263 suggests that God grants this fruit to those who seek wisdom. 

239Among others Cantinat, Chaine, Davids, Hort , and Mit~ 


epexegetical genitive when this phrase is employed in other con- 
texts. 240 

The second half of the saying is likewise filled with 
exegetical dilemmas. The expression tu elpquij can either be 
associated with the fruit of righteousness so that "the righ- 
teousness which springs up is a righteousness in peace" 241 or put 
in primary connection with sowing242 gQ that the sowing happened 
in peace. Finally, the concluding phrase xolq noLovcrou elpfiuriu 
can either be connected with sowing so that the righteousness is 
"sown in peace by those who make peace" 243 q^, ^^^ express the 
advantage of a harvest which the peacemakers receive. 244 jj^ ^j^g 
latter case righteousness is pictured both as sown in peace and 
as a fruit reaped for the peacemakers while with a dative of 
agent no parallel metaphor concerning the reaping of a harvest is 
assumed. The purpose of the verse within it context supports a 
dative of advantage since a harvest of righteousness is con- 
trasted with the results of disorder and every vile practice 

240'jij^j^s phrase certainly contains an epexegetical geni- 
tive in Heb. 12:11; Amos 6:12; Prov, 11:30; Arist. 232; and 
Herm, , Sim. 9,19,2. Cf. Moulton and Turner, Grammar, III: 215. 
Phil. 1:11; Prov. 3:9 LXX; 13:2 LXX remain uncertain when the 
plural form is employed. The quote from Epicurus in CI. Alex., 
Strom. 6,24,10 is certainly not epexegetical. 

24lHort, James, 87, 

242rp]^j^g j[s ^2^g usual interpretation which we also accept. 
The phrase tu elpnvr] is placed before aneipexaL for emphasis and 
not to connect it 'with the "fruit of righteousness" as Hort 
assumes . 

243Thus a dative of agent (RSV, Blackman, Davids, Mitton, 
Ropes) . 

244q;.jius a dative of advantage (Cantinat, Dibelius, Laws, 
Mayor, BDF 191.4, Moulton and Turner, Grammar, III: 238). 


reaped by earthly wisdom in 3:16.245 Furthermore, a dative of 
agent appears to result in a tautology making the last phrase of 
the sentence redundant. "The fruit of righteousness is sown in 
peace" seems sufficient in itself; why add "by peaceable people"? 
Davids attempts to counter this argument by insisting that this 
type of emphatic tautology is placed here for rhetorical 
effect. 246 However, the grammatical rule that the dative of 
agent is only used with verbs in the perfect tense conclusively 
argues against this interpretation. 247 xhus when the- term "fruit" 
is interpreted not as a fruit seed but as the harvest of ripe 
fruit, then the peacemakers who sow in peace reap for themselves 
a harvest of righteousness. The relationship of righteousness 
and peace is usually pictured with righteousness being the cause 
and peace the effect or result of righteousness (Is. 32:17; Aboth 
2:7). Here the reverse is true: righteousness is the harvest 
which results when peace is sown. In Heb . 12:11 the result of 
discipline is the peaceful fruit of righteousness {Kapnou 

2'*^As a generalizing conclusion the purpose of this verse 
is to offer a contrasting result to the earthly wisdom of 3:16; 
as a transitional statement the purpose is to emphasize sowing in 
peace vs. the work of passions which cause wars in 4:1. 

246Davids, James, 155. 

247Qf _ Archibald T. Robertson, A ^r^mmar of the Greek New 
Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 534. Lk.~23:"l5 
and Jas. 3:7 are allowable since they employ the perfect tense. 
However, not all grammarians are completely convinced of this 
distinction. William W. Goodwin and Charles B. Gulick, Greek 
Grammar (Boston: Ginn, 1930), section 1174 state that it is 
rarely used with other passive tenses and Georg B. Winer, A 
Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: Clark, 
1882), 274 explains that it is usually employed with the perfect 
tense offering as possible exceptions 2 Cor. 12:20; 2 Pet, 3:14; 
Rom. 10:20 from Is. 65:1 (all with the aorist "to be found by"); 
(Jas. 3:18); and Lk . 24:35; Phil. 4:5; and 2 Pet, 2:19 which we 
find questionable. 


elpiiuLKOi/ ... 6 LKaioavvric,) ; in Jas . 3:18 the fruit of righteous- 
ness results from peacemaking, not discipline. 

Mt , 5:9 is often cited as the background for this wisdom 
saying. 248 i,^y!s contends that Jesus' promise of a future reward 
is recalled even though the definition of the reward is quite 
different (called sons of God vs. righteousness) . 249 Hartin finds 
significance in the fact that these are the only two passages in 
the NT to speak of making peace and in both instances a special 
relationship is attributed to God and the bel levers . 250 .jq 
explain the omission of the concept of righteousness in the 
beatitude, authors call attention to the context of Matthew where 
righteousness is a major theme (5:6,10,20; 6:1,33). 

Against these arguments we will point to 1) the missing 
eschatological situation in James; 2) the vocabulary discrep- 
ancies and new imagery presented; and 3) the similar metaphors of 
sowing and reaping encountered in other Jewish-Christian litera- 
ture outside the Jesus-tradition. Unlike Matthew, James is not 
contrasting a present action with an eschatological reward. 
Instead James has in mind only a temporal situation where the 
practice of peace creates true justice in everyday human rela- 
tionships instead of disorder and every vile practice (3:16). 
The differences with the gospel parallel become even more evident 
when we notice that only one word (peace) is the same in each 
verse. Furthermore, this single common word is employed in 

248Qf_ Davids, James , 155; Bruckner, quoted in Spitta, 
Zur Geschichte, II: 168. 

^^^^avfs , James, 165. 
2^'^Hartin, James and Q, 155. 


variant forms and the order of thought is reversed with the 
beneficial reward coming at opposite ends of the sentence. The 
climatic difference is the new element of fruit present in Jas . 
3:18. Since the mention of fruit in 3:17 causes James to recall 
a fitting proverb about the sowing and harvesting of fruit, the 
omission of this imagery in Mt . 5:9 proves that a logion of Jesus 
is not in the mind of James. Finally, when Mt . 5:9 is alluded to 
in Christian writings of the second or third century, the 
beatitude foremat is present (CI. Alex., Strom. 1,7,2; 4,40,2; 
Tert., Pud. 5:15) or at least other beatitudes are found in the 
same context (Tert., Pat. 11:8). In the only occurrence where 
this is not true (Tert. Pud- 2:2), the close connection of the 
terms "sons of God" and "peacemakers" disclose that Mt . 5:9 is in 
view: "And so it will be becoming for the sons of God too to be 
pitiful hearted and peacemakers." This verbal resemblance is 
absent at Jas. 3:18. The shared use of the term "making peace" 
would naturally be expected when two verses are rehearsing match- 
ing themes . 

Similar metaphors of sowing and reaping are found in the 
church's ethical teaching. Paul in Gal. 6:8 states, "He who sows 
to the flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows 
to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life," Similar 
terminology to Jas. 3:18 is used by Paul in 2 Cor. 9:10 in a con- 
text about sowing and reaping. 251 ij^g particular phrase "fruit of 
righteousness" appears to have been fixed already in the language 

251"The harvest of your righteousness" (xa yevri]iaxcx xr)c, 
diKaiocy6vr\c, ujuwv). 


of the LXX since on several occasions (Prov. 3:9; 11:30; 13:2) 
this expression is employed where no equivalent terminology can 
be found in the original Hebrew. ^52 ^j^g popularization of this 
phrase increased in the Christian era as evidenced in its usage 
by Paul, the author of Hebrews, Hermas, and James, 253 'j^y^q theme 
of peace is likewise regularly encountered in the exhortations of 
the leaders of the chur-ch. 254 Therefore the expressions and sub- 
ject matter of Jas . 3:18 were of general interest to the people 
of that day. No specific source can be established, although it 
is highly likely that James drew his material from Jewish prover- 
bial sayings rather than from the logia of Jesus, 255 Therefore, 
on three successive occasions at the end of James' paraenetic 
paragraphs (2:13; 3:12,18) we encounter wisdom sayings which have 
been incorporated into the church's ethical teaching. 
4.2 Jas. 4:4 Mt , 6 : 24 / Lk . 1 6 : 1 3 

jLio LXorAldec; , oudetQ (olKexr7c;) Svvaxai 

ouK oLcSaxe ox t n ^iXia xov koo^ou 6uai KuptotQ douAeueiy- 

'ex9pa xov 6eov eaxiu; r) yap xov eva iiiaqaeL 

OQ kau ovu !3ouAr?0t7 Kal xou 'ixepoi' ayanuae l , 

tpf-Aoc, eXuai xov Koopou , n ei^OQ ai>6eE,exaL 

S-XOpoQ xov 9eov Ka9 iaxaxai . Kal xov exepov Kaxa^poi^nae l . 

ov SvuaaOe Qefj SovAeveiv 

Kal iiaii(x)vg . 

In contrasting friendship with the world and love of God 
Jas. 4:4 first states the ethical dualism in the form of a prin- 

252j^ |g found in Amos 6:12 MT . Similar phrases are 
encountered in Is. 32:17 ( ko I eaxat xa epya xhq S tKaLoavuric, 
elpfiuri) where v. 20 refers to sowing seed and Hos. 10:12 
{yeur) 6 iKaiocrvuric.} - Cf . also Ps . 72:3,7; 85:10. 

253phii. 1:11; Heb. 12:11; Herm., Sira. 9,19,2; Jas. 3:18. 

254Rom. 14:19; Eph . 2:14-17; 4:3; 6:15; Col. 3:15; Phil. 
4:17; 1 Pet. 3:11 etc. 

255cf_ Werner Foerster, s.v. elpnuri, TDNT, II: 412. 


ciple ( "ITriendship with the world is enmity with God") and then 
applies this principle to an individualized situation ("Whoever 
wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of 
God"). Already at 1:27 James has advocated "keeping oneself 
unstained from the world" as part of the definition of pure and 
undefiled religion. Now he points out that the world is the 
false god with whom the people have committed adultery and the 
source of their counterfeit lifestyle of fightings and passions 
(4:1). The term "world" here means the perverted values of human 
society, especially pleasure seeking (4:3), and the various pas- 
sions of the soul (3:14,16; 4:2) which set themselves against the 
will of God. 

James introduces this verse with the words ouk otSaze ex i 
implying that his audience already knew or at least should have 
known what he was about to explain. Therefore Spitta explains v. 
4a as a quotation and 4b as James' application of this principle 
to his own audience. 256 j^ preexistent material is present, then 
we must inquire whether this source material originated in the Q 
saying of Jesus found in Mt , 6:24; Lk . 16:13? Commenting on the 
word OLSaxe Mayor contends that "the reference is to our Lord's 
words Matt, vi . 24. "257 jjg offers no specific proof, but one 
might point to the similar ethical dualism (God / world and God / 
mammon) as well as to the coinciding emphasis (a total commitment 
to God). Furthermore, the structure is reasonably parallel: 

^^^Spitta, Zur Ges ch_i c h t^e , II: 117. Dlbelius and 
Greeven, James , 220 call it a "plausible hypothesis" if it is not 
limited to a direct quotation but includes familiar statements 
from the paraenetic tradition. 

25'?Mayor, James , 134. 


James offers a general principle followed by an individualized 
application while the gospels state a principle in parabolic 
terms followed likewise with an individualized case (twice 
stated) . The gospels add a generalizing conclusion repeating 
this principle in religious terms: "You cannot serve God and mam- 
mon. " 

We will demonstrate the weakness of this line of argumen- 
tation by pointing to closer parallels than Mt . 6:24; Lk. 16:13 
and by showing that such antitheses are a common phenomenon in 
church paraenesis. Some authors set James' view of the world in 
closer proximity to the Johannine picture of Jesus than to the 
Synoptics. Davids explains that "the first statement is conceiv- 
able as either an allusion or a citation, in which case the most 
likely source would be a saying of Jesus, perhaps in a Johannine 
type of tradition. "258 jg^j„g,g ®u©©, 161. Oesterley specifically 
claims that Jn. 15: 18-19 is in James' mind, 259 i^y^-j- j^^ 15:18-19 
illustrates the world's negative relationship to the disciples 
(hatred by the world) rather than the disciples' overly-positive 
relationship to the world (friendship with the world) mentioned 
in Jas . 4:4. A better suggestion than either Mt . 6:24 or Jn. 
15:18-19 is 1 Jn . 2:15-17 whose structure and description of the 
dialectic (John: Father / world; James: God / world; gospels: God 
/ mammon) are closer to James than the gospel parallels. 

^S^Davids, ®u® 
259oesterley, "James," 458. 


Jas. 4:4 1 Jn. 2:15 

p.o LxaALdeQ , ouk oldaxe ozi 

h (piXia xav xogijou pn ay an axe top Kogijov 

'ixdpa xou Oeov taxLi'; p.ri<Se xa tv xw Koajiw. 

5c; ea_y ouv pouAr?©?? (|)lAoc; eXvai tav^ t lq ofyarrg 

xou Koajjov , xgv Koqijo v , ouk eaxLi^ 

txdpoo'xov 9eov KaQicj-xaxai . t] oryarrn xou rraxpoc, ei^ auxw 

This type of teaching, however, is typical of the whole 
NT and not limited to John's writings. Such antitheses as flesh 
/ spirit (Rom. 8:7-9; Gal. 5:16-26), the new creation / world 
(Gal. 6:14-15), and lovers of pleasure / lovers of God (2 Tim. 
3:4) demonstrate that statements such as Jas . 4:4 were not the 
exception in the church's ethical teaching. 260 jj^ fact the intro- 
ductory phrase ouk oiSaxe ox i frequently indicates that familiar 
ethical instruction from the church ' s teaching tradition is about 
to follow. 261 This emphasis in church paraenesis may very well 
have found its origin in the preaching of Jesus as exemplified in 
Mt . 6:24; Lk , 16:13. However, the fact that no common vocabulary 
is present argues conclusively against envisioning Jas. 4:4 as an 
allusion to these gospel references. Instead James and the other 
teachers in the church were putting Jesus' principles into prac- 
tice and employing their own words to express what they had 
learned both from Jesus and from their own experience of the 
Christian faith in the first century. Therefore this is another 
instance where themes from Jesus' preaching have found their way 
into the church's ethical teaching. 

2^'-'Already in intertestamental literature these notes 
were being sounded: Jub . 30:19-22; 1 En. 48:7; 108:8. 

26lRom. 6:16; 1 Cor. 3:16; 5:6; 6:2-19; 9:13-24; cf. 1 
Thess, 3:3-4; 4:2; 2 Thess . 2:6. Cf , ch. 2, section 1.0. 


4.3 Jas. 4:9 Lk. 6:21,25b 

liGKapioi oi nej._v_uh'X£c, vvv , 
ox L xopxacrGi^cjecjOe . 
paKdpLOL ol KAoXoytec; vvu , 

ox L yeXaceze . 

xaAaLTTwpncraTe ouai, 
■^'^ ^ ZL£ii,£i,'^o; X e 
Kai KAaycraxe. 

6 yeAuQ "up5y oi YeAuvxec; vuv, 

^ ^<; .Zli,i:;.£oQ fiexaxpaTrnxw ox t ZI£H,£licre'ce 

Kal n xcfpcf elc, Kaxr^tpeiav . Kai KAowexe. 

Jas. 4:9 lies embedded within a series of short discon- 
nected exhortations centering upon the theme of humility which 
begins (4:6) and ends (4:10) this paraenetic section. This verse 
consists of three imperatives emphasizing remorse and lamentation 
followed by a prophetic denunciation in the style of synthetic 
parallelism. The first of these imperatives xaKanruptiaaxe is a 
NT hapax legomenon and was understood in older commentaries as a 
call to practise voluntary ascetic ism . 2 62 Today, however, 
scholars agree that an exhortation to lament in an attitude of 
inner sorrow and wretchedness is in the author's mind. 263 yet we 
harbor the identical "feeling" that Dibelius experienced when he 
wrote, "I cannot avoid the feeling that these words originally 
had another sense, that instead of a command, they constituted a 
prophetic proclamation of disaster which was worded in the form 
of a command. "264 xhis is further confirmed by the type of 
laughter denounced in 4:9b. Because the brief details of the 
text make it difficult to determine what sort of laughter James 

262jyj3yQj,^ James, 147 following Erasmus and Grotius. E.G. 
Blackman, The Epistle of Janves, 135 wonders if a call to the dis- 
cipline of fasting (similar to Is, 58:5) is present here. 

263Qf_ Davids, James, 167. The word is used this way in 
Herm. , Vis. 3,7,1; Sim, 6, 3,1; 6,2,7; 2 CI. 19:4. 

264j3j^^g2 j^^g g^j^jj Greeven, James, 227. 


had in mind, 265 ^g should assume that he was using traditional 
concepts of thought. In the OT yeAaw as a rendering of pns is 
employed exclusively for the "true or supposed superiority 
towards another expressed in scorn, "256 Rengstorf points out that 

For the Gk. Bible and the Rabbis as well as the NT, laughter 
is an attitude which expresses human self-confidence in the 
face of God .... KAalecy is opposed to it as the attitude 
which expresses the assurance of being, not autonomous, but 
for good or ill, dependent on God. 267 

Jas . 4:9 is, therefore, a prophetic denunciation against human 
self-confidence expressed in scornful laughter. 

The parallel in the Gospel of Luke lies embedded within 
the four woes peculiar to the Sermon on the Plain. Several dif- 
ferences between Jas. 4:9 and Lk. 6:25b stand in the way of 
immediately recognizing James' exhortation as an allusion to a 
saying of Jesus. First of all, the woe form of the saying is 
absent in James; secondly, James' order is different and an addi- 
tional parallel saying is added, "and your joy to dejection." 
Finally, the eschatological nature of the woe is lost by the 
presence of imperatives which call for action now. Spitta 
believes that the present summons to a weeping of repentance in 

265|^^j^-(-^-QjQ^ J§iie§,/ 162 chooses the last in a series of 
possible types of laughter: 1) the laughter to relieve inward 
stress and tension; 2) a response to an unexpected blessing; 3) a 
vehicle of indecency; 4) an instrument of cruelty and ridicule; 
5) the flippant laughter of careless unconcern in a situation 
which should provoke sadness. 

266^33.2 H, Rengstorf, s.v. yeAcru , TDNT, I: 659. The root 
pntli is sometimes employed positively (Gen. 21:6; Ps. 126:2), but 
the LXX employs xcxpa here and not yeAuQ . Jesus' promise of a 
future laughing (Lk. 6:21) is pronounced under the influence of 
Ps. 126:2 MT (of. Rengstorf, I: 662 for a thorough discussion). 

267Kaj,2 H. Rengstorf, s.v. kAclu, TDNT, III: 722-723, 


Jas. 4:9 vs. the eschatological condemnation of future weeping in 
Lk. 6:25 decisively proves that James is not alluding to a gospel 
saying. 268 

These differences have led exegetes to suggest other 
sources besides the gospels as parallels of Jas . 4:9. The OT 
(Is. 32:11-12; Amos 8:10; Prov. 14:13) and apocryphal literature 
(1 Mac, 9:41; Tob. 2:6) have been explored, but similarities of 
wording are completely nonexistent. In defending the Epistle of 
James as a Jewish document, Spitta has called attention to a dif- 
ferent set of texts (Dt. 34:8; 2 Sam. 19:1; Sir. 22:llff; 38:17; 
2 Esd. 18:9 LXX=Neh. 8:9), but these exclusively refer to weeping 
and mourning while the important element of laughter is con- 
spicuously missing. The eschatological woes of 1 En. 94ff269 
have been appealed to, but again none of these woes specifically 
denounce those who laugh. 

James' exhortation xaAa inuipriaaze (4:9) to the ditpvxoL 
(4:8) bears a curious resemblance to the expression "Wretched are 
the double-minded" {xaAaiTnopoi elaiv ol diipuxoL) which is quoted 
as scripture (r? ypa^n avxri , ottou Aeye l ) in 1 CI. 23:3-4 and as 
"the prophetic word" (Aeyet yap koI 6 TrpotJ)^^ lkoq Aoyoc) in 2 CI, 
11:2-4. Could this be the source of Jas. 4:9? Based upon this 
similarity of terminology, Seitz identified this apocryphon as 
the source for James' use of the concept double-mindedness , 2'^0 

268spitta, Zur Geschlchte, II: 171. 

269specific woes are found in 1 En. 94:6-8; 95:5-7; 96:4- 
8; 97:7-8; 98:9-15; 99:1-2,11-15; 100:7-9; 103:5. 

^'^'^Seitz, "Relationship of Hermas to James," 138-140. 
According to Joseph A. Fischer, Die Apostolischen Vater (Darm- 
stadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1976), I: 57, n. 139 this is a citation 
from the unknown book of Eldad and Modad. Cf. ch. 2, section 


Although the synonymous instruction to the double-minded could 
betray James' use of source material, we prefer to perceive the 
address as a standard moral exhortation against the specific vice 
of double-mindedness . Based upon the remaining subject matter in 
1 CI. 23:3-4 and 2 CI. 11:2-4,271 ^^ appears that no clear 
dependence can be established between the two passages. Laws 
summarizes the different content as follows, "In the ''quotation' 
the doubt of the dipsuchoi is concerned with the coming of the 
kingdom of God and answered in a parable of the vine, a concern 
and an image that have no place in the contexts of either Jas . i. 
8 or iv. 8. "272 j^ appears that the coupling of these terms is a 
more general phenomenon as witnessed by Hermas ' address in Sim, 
1:3, "0 foolish and double-minded and miserable man. "273 There- 
fore, no specific passage outside the NT can be identified as the 
source of Jas. 4:9. 

Turning back to the parallel in Luke, we perceive that 
striking similarities exist: 

1) Three major words are found in each verse: nevOew , jcAatw, and 
yeAojQ (yeAaw in Luke) . 

2) "Laughter" is only mentioned in these two locations in the NT. 

271i ci. 23:3-4 "Wretched are the double-minded, which 
doubt in their soul and say, "These things we did hear in the 
days of our fathers also, and behold we have grown old, and none 
of these things hath befallen us. ' Ye fools, compare yourselves 
unto a tree; take a vine. First it sheddeth its leaves, then a 
shoot Cometh, then a leaf, then a flower, and after these a sour 
berry, then a full ripe grape." 2 CI. 11:2-4 with minor changes 
adds, "So likewise My people had tumults and afflictions: but 
afterward they shall receive good things." 

"^"^ '^ha.vis , J ames , 185. 

273^(^poy Koc dttpuxe Kat xaAoLTTupe ai^epwrre. Cf. also Vis. 
3,7,1 . 


3) The immediate context of the sayings is similar, with James 
speaking against the double-minded sinners (4:8) while Jesus is 
denouncing the rich, the well-fed, the laughing, and the people 
spoken well of. 

4) James' saying is not prefixed with a woe, yet the word 
"wretched", also chosen in Jas . 5:1, appears to be the Jamesian 
substitute for ovai in both places. ^-^^ Since the actions of weep- 
ing and mourning are frequently associated with the pronouncement 
of woes as in the lament over Babylon in Rev. 18:11,15,19,275 g^ 
James' mentioning of weeping and mourning increases the pos- 
sibility that he had a woe in mind. 

5) By means of the three exhortations of 4:9a James fits a 
prophetic proclamation of disaster into a series of admonitions 
to the believing community. Dibelius' "feeling" that Jas. 4:9 
was originally more of a judgment saying than an admonition is 
supported by an association with the woe of Lk, 6:25b. Within 
church paraenesis the eschatological woe has been transformed 
into ethical instruction. 

6) The change in order does not argue against Jas. 4:9 being 
based on a logion of Jesus but instead points to the development 
that this saying underwent in its transmission by the church. 
James has altered the eschatological denunciation to an exhorta- 
tion for the church. In Luke the mourning and weeping are a 
future result of the coming of the kingdom and therefore placed 

2'^4rpj^Qjjjgg QY and 112 recite almost identical statements, 
one with "wretched" and the other with "woe". Jer , 4:13 also 
demonstrates the close connection of these two words: oval npiti^, 
6x L xaAacTTupou^ev . 

275The word oval is utilized in each case (18:10,16,19). 


last in the sentence. For James the eschatological kingdom 
spoken about in the woes of Luke has been inaugurated in Jesus, 
and thus the laughter should already be turned into mourning. 
Since the weeping is now a present experience, the future results 
are transformed into exhortations and placed at the beginning of 
the sentence. Jesus' saying is, therefore, still eschatological, 
but as Dibelius says, "the prophet is calling into view the time 
of the End when he says 'be wretched' ."276 y^^ ^~^^ therefore 
reasonably conclude that Jas . 4 ; 9 is an allusion to a saying of 
Jesus which is now applied to the ethical life of the church by 
means of a. somewhat transformed word order, form, and 
eschatological application. Within church paraenesis James is 
free to explain the meaning of the saying by adding his own 
parallel expression, "and let your joy be turned to dejection." 
4,4 Jas, 5:1 Lk, 6:24,25b 

aye uvv ol ttAouctioj. , ^^ nXh^ oval viiZu xo'lc, ttAovcjLolc, , 

i$A5[20"0fTe oAoAu^oj^xec; 

tnl xaLQ xaAaiTTwp (.acQ upwi^ 

xaZq, enepxoneuaLC, . oxi anexexe xi)v napaKhiiaiv t)\iusv . 

25b ouat, ot yeAuvtCQ vvv , 
bxi TT£u9r~iaexe kql KAavaexe . 

We have positioned Jas, 5:1 after our discussion of Jas. 
4:9 because of two factors that clearly tie these passages 
together: 1) both have been propounded as parallels to the woes 
of Jesus found in Lk . 6:24-26; and 2) similar wording is utilized 
in each case. In 5:1 James repeats the imperative KAa5craxe and 
chooses the rare NT term xaAai.niopLa'^'^'^ whose verb form is also 

^•^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 227. 

2'^'^It is only found in the NT at Rom. 3:16, a reference 
to Is, 59:7, 


employed at Jas . 4:9. Thus James appears to be purposely utiliz- 
ing the same imagery for the rich as he had employed for those 
who laugh. This link of terminology is best explained by the 
hypothesis that James is recalling a common source where both 
those who laugh and those who are rich are denounced. Since 
Jesus similarly warns the rich and those who laugh about the 
reversal of fortunes coming upon them, Lk. 6:24-25 is the most 
likely source. 

But what are the objections to this hypothesis? First, 
one might protest that Jas. 5:1-6 is structurally connected with 
4:13-17 rather than 4:9. Both of these sections begin with the 
address aye vvv ol ... and proceed to denounce the merchant class 
(4:13-17) and the landholding stratum of society (5:1-6), The 
literary aim of the genre is prophetic denouncement rather than 
the disciplinary exhortations of 3:13-4:12. No room is given for 
repentance to the rich in Jas. 5:1-6,278 ^■^J^■^ ^-^^ laughing, 
double-minded, sinners of 4:1-10 are promised more grace (4:6), 
the flight of the devil (4:7), the drawing near of God (4:7), and 
exaltation (4:10) if they repent. Thus the conclusion of several 
commentators is that any verbal connection between 5:1 and 4:9 
should be minimized. In answering this objection, we want to 
recognize the close structural connection between 4:13-17 and 
5:1-6 as well as the change of mood from exhortation to threat. 
Yet the uniqueness of Jas. 4:9 within the section of Jas. 4:1-10 

^"^^The word oAoAuCw, a NT hapax legomenon at 5 : 1 , is con- 
tinually enlisted by the OT prophets to proclaim the doom of for- 
eign empires (Babylon, Is. 13:6; Philistia, Is. 14:31; Moab , Is. 
15:2f; 16:7; Lebanon, Zech. 11:2), 


should be recalled. We have argued that there are clues that 

originally in James' source Jas . 4:9b functioned as a prophetic 

denunciation. Furthermore, Laws^'?^ demonstrates that "striking 

contrasts in content" exist between 4:13-17 and 5:1-6: 1) unlike 

the merchants the rich are condemned even before their offense is 

described; 2) the merchants appear to know better and so are 

given instructions to act differently (4:15), while the rich are 

called upon only to weep and wail; 3) the merchants are not 

attacked for who they are but for what they have done, while the 

attack in 5: Iff is upon the rich qua rich; 4) in contrast with 

the "Biblicized" language employed to criticize the rich, there 

is a total lack of any specific OT background in 4:13-17. Based 

upon these considerations, one must admit that these two sections 

are not so structurally knit together as to disallow a comparison 

between Jas. 4:9 and 5:1. Many scholars at least admit that 5:1 

is echoing the language used at 4:9.^80 

A second objection claims that additional parallels 

besides Lk. 6:24 indicate that traditional language about the 

rich is being utilized rather than any one particular source. 

Already in the OT (Joel 1:15; Jer . 6:26) the day of the Lord is 

said to bring wretchedness. 1 En, 94:8-9 announces a woe against 

the wealthy with the same expression "day of slaughter" employed 

in Jas .5:5. 

8 Woe to you, ye rich, for ye have trusted in your riches, 
and from your riches shall ye depart, because ye have not 
remembered the Most High in the days of your riches. ^ Ye 

^'^^Laws, James, 195. 

•^^^Lavis , J ame s, 195; Hoppe , H inter grund Jakobusbrief es , 



have committed blasphemy and unrighteousness, and have become 
ready for the day of slaughter, and the day of darkness and 
the day of great judgment . 281 

Finally, 1 En, 97:5a ("And in those days the prayer of the 
righteous shall reach unto the Lord") resembles Jas . 5:4b ("and 
the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of 
Hosts"), and 97:10 ("For ye have acquired it all in unrighteous- 
ness") parallels the specific details about fraud found in Jas, 
5:4a. These similar expressions in 1 Enoch and the OT confirm 
that James is using traditional terminology and Biblicizing his 
material . 2S2 

There are also significant parallels in Christian litera- 
ture. Rev. 3:17 employs the adjective xaAaijrijpoc, (wretched) to 
rebuke the rich: "For you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and 
I need nothing;' not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, 
poor, blind, and naked." Similarly Hermas (Sim. 1:3), in warning 
the rich against adding superfluous fields and expensive build- 
ings to their possessions, ties the word "wretched" to his 
rebuke: "0 foolish and double-minded and miserable ( xaAacTTupe ) 
man, perceivest thou not that all these things are foreign, and 
are under the power of another?" Yet contrary to James Hermas 
continues with positive advice, "Therefore, instead of fields buy 
ye souls that are in trouble, as each is able, and visit widows 
and orphans, and neglect them not." Does this series of parallel 
sayings to Jas, 5:1 offer better evidence for the counter- 

^^-'■Since the Greek fragment begins with 97:6, this sec- 
tion of 1 Enoch is only preserved in Ethiopic, Woes involving 
riches also appear at 1 En. 96:4 and 97:8-10. 

282Qf, ch. 2, sections 3,3 and 3.4, 


hypothesis that James does not have Lk. 6:24 specifically in mind 
but is only employing traditional language to reproach the rich? 

In evaluating this second objection, we will attempt to 
demonstrate that the same evidence can point in a different 
direction. Davids states that "only two pre-Jacobean traditions 
have this tone in their treatment of the rich: the apocalyptic 
tradition of Eth. Enoch 94-97 and the Sayings tradition in its 
Lucan form, i.e. Lk . 6:20-26. "283 it is possible that the woes of 
1 Enoch had already influenced the sayings of Jesus284 g^ that 
James is alluding indirectly to Enoch by referring to the gospel 
saying. Whatever the case, there are valid reasons for contend- 
ing that Lk. 6:24 is the primary background of Jas . 5:1. In both 
we encounter a similar content, context, and use of eschatologi- 
cal language. An allusion to a saying of Jesus at Jas. 5:2 (Lk. 
12:33b,- Mt . 6:19-20) surely increases the probability that 
material from the same source would occur in the immediate con- 
text. 285 This evidence coupled with the occurrence of another of 
the Lucan woes (against those who laugh) in close proximity con- 
firms our hypothesis that a woe from Lk . 6:24 is in the mind of 
James at 4:9 and 5:1. The word "wretched" which ties 4:9 and 5:1 
together appears in each case to be James' alternative to the 
Lucan term "woe". The thought of mourning and weeping in Jas. 

283£)3y j^(j3 ^ Jsmes, 175. He describes the tone as "a 
sharp, cutting cry of prophetic denouncement. Their doom is com- 
ing; woe to them." 

284.pj^e wording of 1 En. 97:8-10 appears to have 
influenced Jesus' parable against the rich at Lk. 12:14-21 and 
therefore might also provide a background for Lk, 6:24. 

285gee Kittel's criteria for determining an allusion in 
"Der geschichtliche Ort," 92, n. 39. 


4:9a probably reminded James of Jesus' woe against those who 
laugh. Then in 5:1 he repeats the exhortation to weep as well as 
the coming wretchedness since he recognizes that the woes against 
the rich and those who laugh belong together in the Jesus- 
4.5 Jas. 4:10 Mt . 23:12 Lk. 14:11; 18:14b 

oaxcQ c5e; U(|>ucret eavxov 6t l nac, 6 U(|j6jy eavxou 

xane Lvu9f]aezai kol xaneivioOt^o-exai , (6 St) 

xane luojdnxe ocjxlc, xane Luwcre i eauxov icai 6 xane LvuJu eavxou 

tv(l}nLou Kvpiov 

^'^'- P^itMP'^ ^ vp-ac,. vijiueriO'exaL . v^uOno-exai . 

James concludes the series of disciplinary exhortations 
of 4:7-10 with a generalizing conclusion declaring that exalta- 
tion will follow the present situation of humiliation and 
repentance. This promise parallels the pledge of extra grace 
given to the humble in 4:6 so that the theme of humility serves 
as an envelope technique enclosing these exhortations. The 
humility is not connected with poverty as in Jas. 1:9 nor with 
oppression as in the similar expression in 1 Pet. 5:6,286 ^^-^ 
centers on lowliness of heart and penitence as in the attitude of 
the publican in Lk. 18:14. The original content of the humility 
in the gospel sayings is difficult to determine since the Sitz Im 
Leben Jesu has probably been lost; the saying now functions as a 
generalizing conclusion which can be placed after various sorts 
of contexts. In Mt , 23:12 it concludes a description of the 
lowly character of the Christian community over against the prac- 
tices of the Pharisees. In Lk. 14:11 it is loosely attached to 

286|gQj, j^g humility connected with the humiliation and 
exaltation of Christ as in Phil. 2:8 or the exaltation of others 
as in 2 Cor. 11:7. 


the parable about seating arrangements at a marriage feast and is 
not vitally necessary to understand the message of the parable. 
In Lk, 18:14 It is adjoined to a different parable, the Pharisee 
and the Publican, explaining why the latter went home justified. 
Thus the themes of the contexts are similar although the situa- 
tion in mind is by no means identical. 

Two exegetical details warn against assigning this saying 
uncritically to the teaching of Jesus. First of all, James com- 
pletely omits the first half of the saying, "Everyone who exalts 
himself will be humbled." Coupled with the differences in 
form, 287 this fact raises the possibility that another source 
other than a saying of Jesus is being alluded to, Bultmann 
places the gospel saying in his list of secular meshalim made 
into dominical sayings^^S ^^^ would, therefore, likely set this 
parallel of James in the same category. The theme of the exalta- 
tion of the lowly is also a popular subject in Jewish thought 
during the OT , the intertestaraental period, ^^^ and the ministry 
of John the Baptiser.290 Therefore, the background for Jesus' 
wisdom saying, "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and 
whoever humbles himself will be exalted," is certainly in such OT 
texts as: 

1 Sam. 2:7b "The Lord^ . . . brings^low, he also exalts." 
( xarre i-i^oL Kal avv<\)oZ) 

287'j'he passive imperative form xajie i.vw0nxe and the active 
voice U(f;(jCT£i are different from the gospels, 

288Bu^2tmann, Syno ptic Tradition, 102-104, 

289sir. 2:17; 3:18; 7:11; Test. Jos, 10:3; 18:1; IQH 
3:20; 15:16. Cf. Walter Grundmann, s.v, xaiTzlvor, TDNT , VIII: 14 
for references within rabbinic literature. 

^^^^Lk, 1:52 "He has put down the mighty from their 
thrones and exalted those {v^^uioev zarfeivovc,) of low degree". 


Job 5:11 "He sets on high those who are lowly." 

(xoy noiovuza xane luovc, elq Vilioc,) 

Ps. 87:16 "having been exalted, I was brought low ..." 
LXX (u4(6J0eLc; 3e ezaneiuuOqu) 

Prov. 29:23 "A man's pride will bring him low, but he who is 
lowly in spirit will obtain honor." 

(u/3pLQ au6pa xaneivoZ , touq Se xaTrecj^o^povac; epeiSci 
da^rj KVp LOC, . ) 

Is. 2:11 "and the pride of men shall be humbled and the Lord 

alone will be exalted in that day." 
(Kal zane LvuOrio'exaL x6 Viljoq zQu auOpuniJv , Kal 
vtjjuefjaezaL KvpioQ jiopoq ev xT} h] eKeit'p.} 

Is. 10:33 "and the lofty will be brought low." 
(Kal OL vihnKoL xa'neLvii}9r)OOvxaL) 

Ezk. 17:24 "I the Lord bring low the high tree, and make high 
the low tree . " 

( eytj KupLOt; 6 xa-neivuiv ^vKov vipriKov Kal vip(ii' B,v?\Ou 
xane lvou . . . ) 

Ezk. 21:26 "Things shall not remain as they are; exalt that 
(21:31 LXX) which is lo'w , and abase that which is high." 

(exaTTe LvcjaaQ x6 vipri^oi' Kal x6 xaneiuou ucl'WcraQ.) 

Ezk. 17:24 derives from a Messianic passage where v. 23 is the 
background for Jesus' kingdom parable in Mt . 12:31-32 par. 
Therefore, this saying of Jesus (Mt. 23:12 etc.) might have its 
background not only in wisdom literature but also in the expecta- 
tions of the eschatological age at the heart of Jesus' preach- 
ing. 291 Whatever the case, Jas . 4:10 appears to trace back to OT 
Jewish teaching through the saying of Jesus. Its contextual con- 
nection with Prov, 3:34 in both James and 1 Peter confirms the 
close tie with OT thought. From this phenomenon Grundmann con- 
cludes that both Jas. 4:10 and 1 Pet. 5:6 are molded on the pat- 

29lThe lifting up {nXripudna-exat) of the valleys and the 
lowering (zaneiuuOnaexaL) of the mountains in Is. 40:4 is inter- 
preted eschatologically in Lk. 3:5. 


tern of Prov. 3:34 with the exaltation being the grace which God 
manifests to those who submit to Him. 292 However, the connection 
with Prov. 3:34 does not explain the use of the word "exalt". 
The more likely explanation is that Prov. 3:34 and the saying of 
Jesus in the gospels were combined in the ethical teaching of the 
church which James and Peter repeat. The discovery of other 
allusions to the sayings of Jesus in this context of James293 as 
well as the fact that both James and Jesus use this exhortation 
as a generalizing conclusion at the end of a pericope (unlike the 
OT examples) indicates that the immediate background for Jas . 
4:10 includes the dominical saying. 

A second exegetical detail, the addition of the express- 
ion "before the Lord", might lead one to assign church paraenesis 
as the source for Jas. 4:10. In this case one would expect that 
eytjTTiov Kvpiov would refer to Jesus and the addition Vfiac, would 
designate the Christian community. Yet the referent of the word 
Kuptoc; in James is not so easily determined. In 1:1 (without an 
article) 294 ^^^^ 2:1 (with an article) KupiGc, is attached to the 
title Jesus Christ, giving us two prominent examples where Jesus 

292p^a2ter Grundmann, s.v. xaneiuoc,, TDNT, VIII: 18-19. 

293ja,s. 4:2c-3,9; 5:1,2, We follow the heuristic guide- 
line that where a cluster of allusions from one author to another 
exist, it is easier to argue for the probable presence of other 
allusions in passages which, considered alone, might seem at 
first unlikely candidates. 

294The article is commonly omitted before the title "Lord 
Jesus Christ" at the beginning of an epistle: Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 
1:2; 2 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:2. 
Poss, Artic ular C onstr uction in James, 3 9 is mistaken when he 
explains, "The word for Lord with the article was a title given 
to the early Roman Emperors to express their deity. This makes 
the absence of the article in this case significant, for James no 
doubt did not wish to compare in this way the deity of Christ 
with the so-called deity of the Roman Emperors." 


is the Lord. Yet most of the occurrences of KvpLoc, refer to God 
the Father (1:7; 3:9; 5:4,10,11) as shown from their context. 295 
A final group of references (4:10,15; 5:7,8,14,15)296 ^^j^ t^q 
understood as designating either God or Jesus. Unfortunately, 
the presence of the definite article does not assist us in 
identifying Kuptoc; as with Paul. 29'^ James' usage is variable 
especially when KuptoQ is found in the genitive case within or 
near prepositional phrases. 2 98 Nor does the content or context 
offer any conclusive evidence in these cases. In 4: 15. the will 
of the Lord could either be the plans of God or the guidance of 
Christ, although the overwhelming usage in the NT refers to the 

295q;.j^q parallel expression nap a xov 9eou at 1:5 
demonstrates that napdt xov Kvp'iou at 1:7 refers to God. At 1:12 
both 6 KupLOQ (C, P, 0246, M, sy^) and 6 SeoQ (4, 33, 323, 945, 
1241, 1739, vg, syP etc.) are inserted. At 3:9 the Byzantine 
text type changes to 9e6c, because "Lord and Father" are placed 
side by side. The title "Lord of hosts" at 5:4 is an OT designa- 
tion for Yahweh. The OT prophets at 5:10 spoke in God's name. 
In 5:11 Job is rewarded by God, not Jesus, and the allusion to 
Ps . 103:8 would certainly indicate that 6 KupcoQ refers to Yah- 
weh. In the text under consideration (4:10) eeoc. is also sub- 
stituted for KVpioQ by 945, 1241, 1739, 2298 and several ver- 
sions, thus evidencing the belief of early readers that God was 
being spoken about. 

296ji^-j- 4.10 the Byzantine text tradition adds the article. 
In 5:10 several miniscules add the article xov (69, 323, 614, 
945, 1241, 1505, 1739, 2495), and A, j, 81 omit it from 5:14. 
This indicates a trend toward a uniformity which is not present 
in James. The omission of the article before KUpioc, with 
prepositions is especially common in the NT as testified by 1 
Cor. 7:15b; 2 Cor. 3:16; 11:17; Eph . 6:8; Col. 3:24; 1 Thess. 
4:17b; 2 Thess. 2:13. 

297]y[Q.^2ton and Turner, Grammar, III: 174. "As a general 
rule it may be said that for Paul 6 KupioQ = Christ and Kvpioc, = 
Yahweh . " 

298Moulton and Turner, Grammar, III: 179-180 illustrate 
the frequent omission of the article "after prepositions" or 
"before a noun which governs a genitive". 


will of God. 299 The napovcria of 5:7-8 is consistently applied in 
the NT to Jesus, 300 ^^■^-j- coupled with the expression in v . 9, "the 
Judge is standing at the doors," it might indicate the coming of 
God the judge as in 4:12, In 5:14-15 the phrases "anointing him 
with oil in the name of the Lord" and "the Lord will raise him 
up" are probably references to the continuation of Jesus' earthly 
healing ministry by the church, ^01 j^-j- -^-^g same time it could 
refer to anointing in the name of God, just as Jesus healed by 
praying in the naro.e of his Father. Therefore, James' usage of 
Kup coQ is ambivalent. The fact that in the OT Yahweh (LXX 
KupcoQ) humbles and exalts his people (1 Sam, 2:7b; Ezk. 17:24) 
probably favors a reference to God. -302 However, the best evidence 
that the KVpioc, of Jas . 4:10 indicates God and not Jesus is the 
parallel in 1 Pet. 5:6. 

1 Pet, 5:6 appears in a similar context to Jas. 4:10, 
preceded by a quote fx'om Prov. 3:34 (like Jas, 4:6) and including 

2990eAnjiCf xou 9eov Mk, 3:35; Rom. 1:10; 12:2; 15:32; 1 
Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:5; Gal, 1:4; Eph . 1:1; 6:6; Col. 1:1; 
4:12; 1 Thess . 4:3; 5:18; 2 Tim. 1:1; Heb . 10:36; 1 Pet. 2:15; 
3:17; 4:2,19. QeKiip.a xov Trep-tpauxoc. pe in John and deXq^a zou 
nazpoQ pou in Matthew, When the phrase OeAriiia xov Kvpiou is 
used, it is difficult to determine the referents. Cf . Acts 21:14 
where the Lord Jesus is mentioned in 21:13 and Eph. 5:17 where 
Lord is used in v. 19 in contrast to God the Father. The same 
phrase (i:au 6 KupioQ ©eAnarj) in 1 Cor. 4:19 does not help us 
since Christ is mentioned in v. 17 and God in v. 20, 

^OO^t. 24:3,27,37,39; 1 Cor, 15:23; 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 
4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1,9; 2 Pet. 1:16; 3:4; 1 Jn. 2:28. 

^'-'^Cf. Appendix I, section 4.12. Poss, Articular C_on- 
st ruction in James , 203-204 inconsistently identifies KupuoQ with 
Jehovah in 5:14 and with Christ in 5:15. 

^^^Vlhen similar phraseology to James is used in the LXX, 

nin' 'j^tQ is translated euavxiou KvpLou (2 Chr . 33:23) and 

B'n^^ [-'isy] MpVo ano npoaunov iiou (2 Chr. 34:27), evunLou Qeov 

(2 Esd. 8:21=Ezra 8:21), and euavxLou KVpLov xov Oeov aov (Dan. 

10:12 with Theodotlon omitting KvpLov). 


an exhortation to resist the devil (1 Pet, 5:8~9=Jas. 4:7). Put 
in synopsis format, the verbal parallels are striking. 
Jas. 4:10 1 Pet. 5:6 

eu(l)n LOU KupLov vno xr}v Kpaxaiav xe^pa "cou Qeou , 

In each case a propositional phrase is inserted between the hum- 
bling clause and the exaltation ending to describe the authority 
to whom the humiliation is offered. Thus "the hand of God"303 ^-^ 
1 Peter parallels "the Lord" in James. We observe, furthermore, 
that the differences in form between James and the gospels do not 
pertain to James and 1 Peter. Over against the gospels both 
James and 1 Peter begin with an aorist passive imperative, 
include the middle phrase mentioned above, place the verb 6(|;6w in 
the active voice, and include the object u^aq referring to the 
Christian community. These connections cannot be accidental; the 
best explanation as Selwyn and Carrington observe is the postula- 
tion of a common source. ■304 yg^ Selwyn' s intricate suggestions 
concerning a written persecution source require too many 
hypothetical leaps into the unknown area of church catechetical 
materials in the first century. It is more likely that the oral 
ethical teachings common to the leaders of the church (possibly 
of a particular Christian community) are the source for these 
striking similarities of wording and content between James and 1 

^'-'^To be humbled under the hand of someone is an OT 
expression: Gen. 16:9 and Ps . 105(106) :42. 

'^O'^Selwyn, First Peter, table xiv, 442-449 calls this 
grouping the Persecution Source. Carrington, PrlJB,ltly;e 
Catechism, 42-43. 


Peter. Moreover, this ecclesiastical teaching pattern is close 
to OT usage since the humbling is before God and not Jesus. 

The fact that we have identified Jas . 4:10 and 1 Pet. 5:6 
as church paraenesis using OT language does not automatically 
exclude this verse from being identified as a saying of Jesus. 
The sayings of Jesus were important to the early church's parae- 
nesis305 since the community would naturally give priority to 
Jesus' teaching on subjects such as humility. The fact that 
K^pLOQ in Jas, 4:10 does not refer to Christ would indicate that 
little development has taken place in the content of the saying 
since Jesus first spoke it. 306 rpj^^ fact that the wording oazic, 
zaTTeivLiae L or 6 xaTreivuv has been altered to the imperative form 
xane Luuerjxe indicates a change in the medium of the message, 
since a wisdom saying would naturally change to moral exhortation 
if employed in the churches ethical tradition. Therefore it Is 
probable that a saying of Jesus, which in turn has its background 
in OT wisdom, stands behind the similar exhortations of Jas. 4:10 
and 1 Pet. 5:6. The first part of Jesus' saying could have been 
dropped either because James had already spoken against exalting 
oneself in 4:6 ("God opposes the proud") or more likely because 
in applying the saying to the Christian community, the more 
applicable upbuilding half of the saying would be transmitted. 
At any rate, the repetition of only half of Jesus' logion was a 

^'-'^It is precisely in Paul's paraenetic passages that one 
encounters the most allusions to the sayings of Jesus: Rom. 12; 1 
Thess. 5. Cf. below, p. 220. 

■^^^Although not specifically expressed in the gospel 
parallels, James and 1 Peter assume that humility before God is 
in the mind of Jesus. 


common phenomenon in the early church as witnessed by the writ- 
ings of Clement of Alexandria and Origan, ^07 j^ ^|-^g case of Jas . 
4:10 it is difficult to decide whether only a theme of Jesus' 
preaching has entered into the church's ethical teaching or 
whether a specific saying of Jesus is being consciously alluded 
to. The similar function of the sayings as generalizing conclu- 
sions, the presence of other dominical logia in the context, the 
verbal and conceptual similarities, the support of many com- 
mentators in the history of interpretation, ^08 ^t^^ ^^le above 
explanation for the divergent wording between Jas. 4:10 and Mt . 
23:12; Lk. 14:11; 18:14b Indicate that James is based upon a 
dominical saying. 
4.6 Jas. 4:11-12 

'^'^ y-A KazahaAeixs aKAnAu)h> , a6eK<poi. 

6 KazaAaKuu aSeX^ov n EbSk^^ '^°^ ade\$6v auxou 

KaxaXaXeZ u6}iou Kal Kpcvet p6p.ou- 

el (Se v6\xov KpLueiQ, 

OUK et TTOLHxrK p6p.ov aAAcr Kpixric,. 

etc, eaxLu b yofioSexriQ Kal Kpixriq, 

6 dvvap,evoc, crajaaL Kal arroAeaaL- 

CTU c5£ xic, et 6 Kp Lj^ojv x6v TTXnaiou; 


Mt. 7:l-2a Lk . 6:37 

g_Q, K£_lji€te, Kal jjji Kg_iuex£j^ 

Iva uh Kptente- Kal ov pn KptOnxe 

Koc iij-i KaxaS LKai^exe , ^ 
Kal ov |ir] KatacS LKaaerixe . 

£u (o yap KpLp.axL KpLuexe 
Kp iBqaecrOe . . . 

30^01. Alex., Strom. 2,132,1 (GCS 52, p. 185, line 29); 
Dives 1:4 (GCS 17,2, p. 160, line 3). element repeats the whole 
saying in Paed. 3,92,1 (GCS 12, p. 286, line 21) but reverses the 
order. Origen, Cel. 3:63 (M. Barret, SC 136(1968), p. 144, line 
1) . 

^'-'^Davids, James, 168 calls the gospel parallels "the 
immediate background" of James". Mitton, James, 163 explains that 
James speaks "with the full authority of Jesus". 


Because of the shift in audience from adulteresses (4:4), 
and double-minded sinners (4:8) to the usual &6eX(l>OL , we must 
categorize Jas , 4:11-12 as a brief, transitional, self-contained 
section with a different subject matter and tone from what pre- 
cedes and follows it. 309 j^g , 4:11-12 contains a threefold warn- 
ing against judging your brother (11a), judging the law (lib), 
and judging your neighbor (12b), The gospel sayings are more 
general and do not specify what is being judged. In both James 
and the gospels one type of judging leads to another. In James 
judging another person results in judging the law; in the gospels 
an act of judging ends in the judgment of God being returned upon 
the subject. 310 Therefore we can Identify certain general 
thematic similarities. 

The specific variations between the parallels, however, 
cast shadows of doubt upon any thesis that identifies Jas. 4:11- 
12 as an allusion to a saying of Jesus, In the gospels judging 
results in the actor being judged, but in James there is no warn- 
ing concerning the judgment of God; instead the subject of judg- 
ing the law is introduced, a topic unparalleled in the context of 
the Sermon on the Mount, 311 Secondly, we encounter in James the 
emergence of one of his favorite themes, "being doers of the 

309Moffatt finds it so difficult to establish a connec- 
tion between 4:10 and 4:11 that he transfers these verses to fol- 
low 2:13. Mitton, James, 165 suggests a contrast with 4:10, but 
an imperative with the vocative begins new sections at Jas. 
1:2,16,19; 2:1; 3:1; 4:11; 5:7,12. Like 2:13 and 3:18, Jas. 
4:11-12 is a transitional, self-contained unit. 

310lj^_ 6:37b adds that condemning reaps condemnation. 

311cf. Laws, James, 187; Gutbrod, s.v. yopoc; , TDNT, IV: 


law." Thirdly, the structure of the passages is widely diver- 
gent. In James we encounter a step-pyramid type structure. 

a Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. 

a He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, 
b speaks evil against the law and judges the law. 

b But if you judge the law, 

c you are not a doer of the law but a judge, 
c (assume: But if you try to be a judge,) 
d There is one lawgiver and judge, 
d he who is able to save and to destroy. 
a But who are you that you judge your neighbor? 

The first line in each step repeats the previous line so that the 

argument builds and builds until the last line brings the reader 

back to the beginning. In the gospels (esp. vivid in Lk, 6:37- 

38a) the structure is abab throughout. 

ab Judge not, and you will not be judged; 

ab condemn not, and you will not be condemned; 

ab forgive, and you will be forgiven; , . 

ab give, and it will be given to you. 

Fourthly, the theme with which James begins this short section, 
slander or speaking evil against one another (KataAaAeu ) , is not 
even once utilized anywhere in the gospels. Finally, if one 
examines other allusions to Mt . 7:1-2 or Lk. 6:37, the similari- 
ties exhibited there are much more obvious than those experienced 
in Jas. 4:11-12: 

Rom. 2:1b £p 5 yap KpiueLC, xov exepov , creavxhu KOxaKplve ic, 
1 CI. 13:2 UQ Kpiuexe, outuq KpidriaecrBe' 
Pol. Phil. 2:3 iifi Kpii'exe, Iva p.ri KptOrixe' 

Each of the above quotations contains a similar structure as well 

as complementary vocabulary and subject matter to that of the 

gospels which seem to be the crucial criteria for evaluating 

whether Mt . 7:1 and Lk. 6:37 are being alluded to. 

Therefore it is necessary to look elsewhere for the 

source of this saying in James. Since Lev. 19:18 is quoted in 

Jas . 2:8 in a context about judging, some contend that the 
expression "judge your neighbor" {KpLuuiu xou rrAncTLoy 4:12) is a 
recollection of Lev. 19:18 {ayanriaeic, xov nXriaLov) . Davids, for 
instance, states, "While James may well be dependent on the Jesus 
logia cited above, Lv. 19:18, previously cited in 2:8-9, is prob- 
ably foremost in his mind."^^^ Because the theme of judging and 
being judged is familiar subject matter in James' epistle 
(2:4,13; 3:1; 4:11-12; 5:9), we believe that James himself is 
drawing upon a well-established tradition of exhortations rather 
than employing specific source material. Dibelius speaks of this 
tradition when he points out that "in Jewish as well as Christian 
paraenesis, slander is felt to be an especially grave sin, and 
one which is particularly characteristic of a life of wicked- 
ness, "^l'^ Thus the subject of slander is especially popular in 
catalogues of vices, ^^^ ^g ^g common with most paraenetic themes 
in the NT, slander has a rich background in Jewish wisdom. -~'^^ 
Since "judging" is also a popular teaching theme among leaders of 
the church, it is highly probable that James is transmitting the 
paraenetic tradition of the church. ^16 since the ethical tradi- 

^-'■^Davids, _James, 170. 

■^^ ^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 228. 

31^Rom. 1:30; 2 Cor. 12:20; 1 Pet. 2:1; Barn. 20:2; 1 CI. 
30:1,3; 35:5; Herm., Mand. 2:2-3; 8:3; Sim. 8,7,2; 9,23,2-3. 

^^^Slander is a common OT theme (Pss. 50:20; 101:5; Prov. 
20:13; Lev. 19:16) and used as well during the intertestamental 
period (Test. Iss. 3r4; Test. Gad 3:3; 5:4; Wis. 1:11; IQS 
4:9,11; 5:25-26; 6:26; 7:2-9). 

21^Cf. Rom. 2:1; 1 Cor, 4:5; 5:12; Jn. 7:24; 8:15-16. 
Rom. 14:3-4 is an excellent example where the theme of judging 
has entered the paraenesis of the church (Rom. 12-14) . Paul 
locates the basis for not judging in the fact that God is the 
master, just as James grounds his exhortation in the fact that 
God is lawgiver and judge. 


tion of the church often appropriates the important themes of 

Jesus' preaching, Jas . 4:11-12 is not alluding to any specific 

saying of Jesus. 

5.0 The Synoptic Parallels in the Prophetic Denunciations 

of Jas. 4:13-5:6 

In 4:13-5:6 James turns from disciplinary exhortations 
aimed at the church to prophetic denunciations of outsiders or 
those only peripherally connected with the community. Beginning 
each section with aye pvu ol, James apostrophises the merchants 
(4:13-17) for their boastful confidence in future fortunes and 
condemns the wealthy landowners (5:l--6) for their oppressive 
actions. Sayings of Jesus and OT background material are espe- 
cially evident in the section condemning the rich. 

A. 4:13-17 Prophetic denouncement of the merchants. 

1. 4:13a Address: "Come now, you who say". 

2. 4:13b The merchants' claim of confidence for the future. 

3. 4:14-16 James' denouncement. 

a. 4:14 The uncertainty of the future. 

1) 4:14a James' reasoning: the future is unknown. 

2) 4:14b Illustration from nature: the mist. 

b. 4:15 A positive alternative: "If the Lord wills." 

c. 4:16 James' condemnation of the merchants' boasting. 

4. 4:17 Concluding aphorism: "Not doing what you know to be 

right is sin. " 

B. 5:1-6 Prophetic denouncement of the wealthy oppressors. 

1. 5:1a Address: "Come now, you rich." 

2. 5: lb Exhortation of woe to the rich (whose background is a 

saying of Jesus — Lk. 6:24), 

3. 5:2-3 Prophetic prediction of destruction. 

a. 5:2-3a Destruction of the oppressor's wealth (like rotting 

riches, moth-eaten garments, and rusted metals). 

b. 5:3b Future destruction of the oppressor. 

c. 5:3c Reason for destruction: they have laid up treasures 


in the last days (allusion to a saying of Jesus 
Mt. 6:19-20; Lk . 12:33b) . 

5:4-6a Accusations 

a. 5 

b. 5 

c . 5 

4 Economic oppression 

5 Luxurious lifestyle 

6a Perversion of justice 

5. 5:5b Concluding aphorism: "The righteous does not resist." 

5.1 Jas. 5:2-3 

a 2 o jjXoijzoq, viiuu aecrnnei' 

a Kal xa Ipdx la vp.uu gjix6§_£uxa yeyoveu , 

a 3 6 xpucrcK; \)\iu)v Kal 6 apyupoc, KaxiuxaL 

b Kal 6 LoQ avxuu etQ iiapxvptou ujnty eaxat 

b Kal tpayexai xac, aapKaq, upiwj/ uq rrup . 

c eerio-avplaaxe eu eaxorxacQ rip.epaLc,. 

Mt. 6:19-21 

s -^^ P-h £lL2'CfM.£,i^£^'ce ufiiv 9n^.P_Eouc, err I xnc, ynq,, 
h ""oTTou OQc; Kal jSgyacq a^avL^ei 

b Kal 07T0U KAsTTxai dLOpvo-aouaiv Kal KAenxovaiv ■ 

3 ^^ iJlSSRsl.^^'^^ <5^ upiJ^ e_rXcraueouQ ey oupavy, 
b • -. ■ »^^y ouxe o^Q ovxe ip^crtQ a^av l^el 

b Kal OTTOU KAerrxac ou dcopuaaouaiy oude KKinxovoriv' 

c 21 OTTOU yap eaxiu a diqaavpoQ aov , 

CKeT eaxac koI r? Kapd la aou . 

Lk. 12:32-34 

a -^2 p^-j ^opou, xo pitKpoi^ TrocpyLov,^ 

6xc eudoKno-ey 6 Traxnp upuy douuaL vp.'iv xnu ISacriXeiai' . 
b 33 rruAno-axe xa UTrcrpxovxa ujiuy Kal doxe eAenROO-ui'n!^ ' 
b 7roLr7CTax£ eauxotc; paAAori'Xca p.t) rraAacoupeva, 

a gy^aau p6y otyeKAe (-ttxci^ eu xolq oupayocQ, 

OTTOU KXenxr^c, ouk eyyl^et 
ovde qjiq, <5 La(|)0e Ipe l • 
c 34 OTTOU yap ecjxiu 6 etjcravpoq, viiQv , 

eKEL Kal r? Kopd la u|iwv eaxac. 

We have already established that James begins chapter 5 

with an allusion to the woe against the rich in Lk. 6:24. After 

this introduction James proclaims (in the perfect tense) the 

destruction of the wealthy landowners' riches, garments, and gold 

and silver: 

2 "Your riches have rotted 


and yo-ur garments are moth-eaten. 
■^^ Your gold and silver have rusted." 

Then elaborating upon the metaphor of rust, James describes the 

future destruction of the oppressors themselves: 

"^^ "and their rust will be evidence against you 
and will eat your flesh like fire." 

Finally, the reason for this destruction is given as a generaliz- 
ing conclusion: 

■•^'^ "You have laid up treasure for the last days."^-'-'^ 
We will first survey the problems of interpretation in Jas . 5:2-3 
and the gospel contexts, then compare the two sayings to 
determine if James is alluding to the Jesus-tradition, and 
finally investigate other Jewish and Christian writings to verify 
that no closer parallels can be discovered. 

Because of the large number of disputed exegetical 
details in Jas. 5:2-3, it is important at the outset to establish 
the meaning of the text. James appears to be making assertions 
about three kinds of wealth^^^ found among the oppressing rich: 

'^-'■'^It is also possible to put a period after ui.iuv and 
have 6q begin a causal clause, "since you have stored up fire," 
as found in the RSV footnote. Yet uq is not used this way in any 
of its other occurrences in Jas. 1:10; 2:8,9,12; 5:5. Dibelius 
and Greeven, Janies f 237, n. 39 mention the interpretation of 
Oecumenius 6 ttAouxoc; ujjiwv, ou ujq nvp edr^aavpiaaxe , Koza^ayexa l 
xdcq, aapKaq vixui> ("Your riches, which you have treasured up as 
fire, will devour your flesh") which attempts to avoid the mixed 
metaphor of rust and fire. Yet similar mixtures of metaphors are 
encountered in the tradition: Judith 16:17. Furthermore, the use 
of the verb "to eat" with fire is not without precedent: Dibelius 
and Greeven, James , 237, n. 40 list as examples Is. 30:27; Amos 
5:6; Is. 10:16f; Ezk . 15:7; Ps . 21:9; Rev. 11:5; 20:9. 

^^^Mayor, James, 149; Mi t ton, Jaines, 176. Laws, James , 
199 contends that this interprets the language too precisely. 
Davids, James, 176 suggests that "the last two terras make 
specific the more general first term. " 


food,319 fabric, and metals. The precise meaning of the perfect 
tense used to describe this wealth has been a matter of dispute. 
If the perfect tense is understood in its normal sense (i.e. as 
something that has taken place in the past but whose ramifica- 
tions continue into the present), then the disaster has already 
overtaken the rich. 320 Because of the change to the future tense 
in 3b, Laws believes that the perfect tense indicates a general 
proposition applying to the present. Thus the author is "here 
concerned to insist upon the present worthlessness of material 
possessions, so far as man's spiritual hope is concerned. "321 rpj^^ 
majority of interpreters (Cantinat, Davids, Dibelius, Mayor etc.) 
explain the perfect tense as an expression of prophetic anticipa- 
tion of future happenings. This position is substantiated by 
certain OT precedents (Is. 44:23; 53:5-10; 60:1-2) where the same 
transfer from the perfect to the future tense is evident. Thus 
the future destruction is so certain that it is described as an 
already occurring event. 

A second controversy concerns the possibility of gold and 
silver rusting as 5:3 appears to propound. It is unnecessary to 
accept 1) the conclusion that James must have belonged to a lower 
social class not acquainted with the properties of gold and sil- 
ver322 ^-^ 2) the contention that this unusual event will take 

^■'•^The rotting of wealth probably refers to perishable 
goods such as grain (1 En. 97:9) although it could refer 
generally to any product of human activity which wastes away 
(Bar. 6:72=Ep. Jer . 71 LXX; Sir. 14:19). 

320cf. Tasker, James, 110. 

32lLaws, James, 198, Cf , BDF 344. 

•^^^Vlindisch, Katholischen Brief e, 31. 


place through a "supernatural calamity"323 ^^ 2) an Ironical 
understanding of the verse so that "even those things that 
normally keep their value in all circumstances would in this par- 
ticular circumstance become valueless . "^24 instead, as the 
majority of commentators agree, James understood the rust meta- 
phorically as with the following figure, of speech where rust eats 
the flesh like fire. The rusting of gold would then function as 
a proverb to describe temporality and uselessness as in the exam- 
ple from the Epistle of Jeremiah where rust denotes the helpless- 
ness and iraperraanence of silver and gold idols. -^25 Apparently the 
tarnishing of these metals led to the use of this metaphor since 
the Ep. Jer. 23 describes rust as being wiped off so the metal 
will shine again (i.e. the polishing of tarnished metal). ^26 

A final difficulty involves the translation of the Greek 
preposition in the phrase eu ecjxa'caLQ r)iiepaic,. The translation 
"for the last days" (JB, RSV) appears to strain the meaning of 
the preposition £v.327 Turner shows that "St. James does not use 
en when he intends no more than a simple dative, and he does not 
confuse it with eis ( towards) . "^28 This phrase could be taken in 

•^^Sjs^^jgj^gQj^^ JsjSSS, 185. 

324n/Ii^^Qn, James," 177. 

325otto Michel, s.v. loQ, T DNT , III: 335. Bar. 
6:12,24=Ep. Jer. 4 : 1 1 ( 12 ) , 23 ( 24 ) . The verses in parenthesis are 
from Charles' and Goodspeed's English editions as well as the 
Gottingen Septuaginta while the former numbers follow Rahlf's 
enumeration of the LXX. 

'^26cf. Ropes, James , 285. Sir. 12:10-11 talks about a 
bronze mirror that rusts. 

327cf. Laws, James, 200. 

'328Turner, Grammatical Insights, 165. Furthermore, it is 
inconsistent of the RSV to translate "for the last days" in 5:3 
and "in the day of slaughter" at 5:5. 


a proleptic sense, "to be available in the last days","^^® but 
both 5:8 ("the coming of the Lord is at hand") and 5:9 ("the 
Judge is standing at the doors") imply that James believed the 
last days were an imminently present experience. Therefore, the 
translation "in the last days" best fits the following context as 
well as the prophetic anticipation of the final judgment in the 
perfect tenses of Jas , 5:2-~3a. 

Because the gospel parallels, Mt . 6:19-21 and Lk. 12:33b- 
34, contain completely divergent verbs {aipai' ii^ei , 3 lopvaaova ii> , . 
kA^ttxouctcv in Matthew; eyyi^et, dLa<peeipei in Luke), disparate 
contexts, 330 ^ dissimilar order of material, 331 an^j a diverse 
emphasis in the message, 332 ^g must assume that they derive from 
different sources. 333 rj^-^Q additional material in Mt . 6:19 could 

329Mitton, James, 178. 

330r[.his section in Matthew contains M material (6:1-18) 
and Q sayings (6:22-24) found in Lk . 11:34-36 and Lk . 16:13. The 
exhortation against anxiety follows the saying in Mt . 6:25-34 but 
precedes it in Lk. 12:22-31. 

331in Luke thief, moth; in Matthew moth and rust, 
thieves. Gundry, Matthew, 113 points out that in Matthew the 
wardrobe spoils and then the money is stolen while in Luke the 
drawing near of a thief precedes the moth's destruction of 
purses . 

332^2i-h -the addition of Mt . 6:19 Matthew's emphasis is 
upon the negative message to renounce earthly treasures, while 
Luke mentions only the heavenly treasure which can be obtained by 
selling possessions and giving alms. 

333opinions, however, differ greatly. Walter Grundraann, 
R§^§. lYSI13®i,iliffl S;.§£li liIite.§S' 262 and Adolf von Schlatter, Das 
Evangel ium des Lukas , 31 If claim that Matthew used Q while Luke 
followed his personal source L. Thomas W. Manson, The .Sa^ijngs of 
Jesjas, 114,1 72 f and Charles F. Burney, The Poetry of^ our Lord, 88 
believe that Luke used Q while Matthew followed his personal 
source M. Wilhelm Pesch, "Zur Exegese von Mt . 6, 19-21 and Lk. 
12, 33-34," Bib 41(1960): 358-361 and Marshall, Luke, 531 suggest 
that Luke used Q and adapted it to catechetical purposes. 


either be an expansion by Matthew334 qj., ^ genuine saying of Jesus 
derived from the M tradition . ^35 Matthew has positioned this 
saying together with other teachings on the economic implications 
of discipleship (6:19-34) in the Sermon on the Mount, Mt . 6:19 
begins with a negative command to not lay up treasures upon the 
earth followed by a pair of ottou clauses balanced by the inclu- 
sion of two subjects in the first clause (moth and rust) and two 
verbs in the second (break in and steal). A positive Injunction, 
using the same terminology, is then stated in v. 20 followed, as 
in Luke, by a generalizing conclusion: "For where your treasure 
is, there will your heart be also." Luke's structure contains a 
promise of the kingdom (12:32), followed by two commands concern- 
ing the economic life of the little flock (12:33a), and concluded 
with an additional promise of an unfailing treasure in the 
heavens which neither thief nor moth can displace (12:33b). 

^^'*Gundry, Ma t the 5^ » 11 states, "Typically, Matthew 
recasts the saying on treasure for closer parallelism..." Mat- 
thew adds a negative statement to form a parallelism at 6:14-15 
(vs. Mk. 11:25) and 7:13-14 (vs Lk. 13:24). Cases of antithetic 
parallelism peculiar to Matthew are given by Joachim Jeremias, 
Ii§w Testament Theology, 15, n. 3. As in Mt . 6:19-20 Matthew, 
unlike Luke, typically contrasts earth with heaven (receive king- 
dom of heaven, inherit the earth 5:3,5; salt of the earth, light 
of the world 5:13-14; swear by heaven or earth 5:34-35; your will 
be done on earth as in heaven 6:10; birds of the heavens, lilies 
of the field 6:26,28; bind and loose on earth and in heaven 16:19 
and 18:18; agree on earth, done in heaven 18:19; no father on 
earth, only a heavenly father 23:9; sign of Son of Man in heaven, 
tribes on earth will mourn 24:30; authority in heaven and upon 
earth 28:18; p45 omits "and of the earth" in Lk. 10:21 and the 
negative statement of Lk. 12:9). 

335sj^nce Mt . 6:21=Lk. 12:34 it could be postulated that a 
saying with similar imagery was spoken on two different occasions 
by Jesus and received separately into the Q and M traditions. 
The rhythmical and poetic parallelism in Matthew is a common 
trait in the teaching of Jesus (cf. Jeremias, NT Theo_logY, 14- 
20) . 


Since the exhortation "sell your possessions and give alms" is 
Lucan both in theme and style, 336 j^^ must be considered an inser- 
tion into the original context of Q. The second command to "pro- 
vide yourselves with purses that do not grow old" likewise con- 
tains distinctive Lucan vocabulary since (iakXavzLOP is employed 
only in Lk. 10:4; 12:33; 22:35,36.337 Apparently Luke is here 
affected by the parallel saying in Lk. 18:22 par. where the rich 
ruler is also commanded to sell everything and give it to the 
poor to receive treasure in heaven. If 12:33a is a Lucan inser- 
tion, then 32 and 33b originally belonged together so that the 
promise of the kingdom is further identified as a treasure in the 
heavens. 338 Thus the catchwords "kingdom" (Lk. 12:31,32), "thief" 
(Lk. 12:33,39), and possibly "break in" (Mt. 6:20; Lk. 12:39)339 
held this section together in Q. Although it is impossible to 
reconstruct the original wording of the first ottou clause in Q, 
there was certainly a parallel structure since Luke (thief 
approaches, moth destroys) Thomas 76 (moth comes near, worm 

336Qf_ Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel, According to Luke 
(X-XXIV) , 981; Guelich, Sermon, 326. eAeopoauvr? is only used in 
Mt . 6:2-4 (3x) but lOx in Lucan writings; urrcrpxu is dominant in 
Lucan literature: Mt . 3x; Lk. 15x; Acts 25x; Paul 12x. 

337Gundry, Matthew, 112 thinks that Matthew omitted this 
command because for him the old treasures are good (cf. 13:52, 
peculiar to his gospel). Mt . 13:52, however, is speaking about 
the good in Judaism, a theme not discussed in Lk. 12:33. 

338Lk. 18:24 states that it is hard for a rich man to 
enter the kingdom of God, thus indicating that "treasure in 
heaven" (18:22) and "kingdom of God" are parallel. Thomas 76 
connects the "unfailing and enduring treasure" with the "kingdom 
of the Father". Finally, the words kingdom and treasure are both 
singular, while purses in 12:33a is plural. 

339Aithough 3 La.<p9opa is unique to Lukan writings ( 6x in 
Acts), Luke's parallelism "come near ... destroy" could be from 
the similar Aramaic roots ap"! ... 3"ip (cf. Matthew Black, An 
Aramaic Agp_ro§ch _to the Gospels and Acts, 178) . 


destroys), and Matthew (moth and rust consume, thieves break in 
and steal) all witness to this balance of phraseology. 

Establishing the meaning of /BpOatc; in Mt . 6:19 is rele- 
vant to the interpretation of Jas , 5:2-3. Although its ordinary 
connotation is "eating" or "that which is being eaten", namely 
food, the secondary meaning "eating some material" was derived 
from this. Therefore, the LXX of Mai. 3:11 replaces "73^340 y^j th 
PpQcTLC,, and Galen uses the term to refer to the decay of teeth in 
the second century CE.^'*-'- In the Ep. Jer . 10 a few MSS^^^ have 
|3pSCTi.Q instead of ppwjLia with loq, thus demonstrating that fSpojcxLC, 
could refer to rust at this time.^'^^ Qn the other hand, Charles, 
believes that the LXX reading drro cou Kal ^pujiaxuiv Opwaewc;) 
reveals a translation error: "If '^SKD i stood in the unpointed 
text, the translator may be supposed to have pointed '73K0 ^ (= Kal 
I3p . . . } instead of '73^n l ~and from a devourer ' (i.e. moth or grub; 
Mai. iii. 11; cf. Job xiii, 28). "344 ^hus o'nc; Kal (SpucTLC, in Mt . 
6:19 may represent *?3ln. a?M, moth and devourer. Translations, 
therefore, diverge between understanding (ipoJaic, as a synonym for 
rust (KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NIV) or as a term for an insect-like 

'^'^'-'Understood here as locusts. H. Gressmann posits 
n'7l3}?B (wood worm) as cited in Erich Klostermann, Das Matthaus- 
Evange_lium, 60. 

KAgyiliOii raXriu ov grravrq (Claudii Ga leni opera omnia) , 
ed. D. Carol Gottlob Klihri, VI: '42 2; XII: s'tS . Cf, BAGD,' s.v. 
IBpwCTLQ, 148.2. 

-^^^L' , 147, La*-^^^ {tinea), Sy { perditione) . The Lucian 
recension consists of Hauptgruppe 22, 36, 48, 51, 96, 231, 311, 
763 and Untergruppe 62, 198, 407, 449. 

^^^Goodspeed translates this verse, "And they adorn them 
with clothes like men, these gods of silver, gold, and wood 
though they cannot save themselves from being corroded with 
rust , " 

344charles, APOT , I: 601. 


worm (TEV, JB, RSV footnote) which consumes clothing like the 
moth with which PpOaic; is combined in Mt , 6:19. Guelich percep- 
tively suggests that the translation "rust" stems from the fact 
that rust is referred to in comparable contexts (Sir, 29.- 10; Jas . 
5:3) where treasures of precious metals are mentioned . 345 p^ 
translator would naturally think of precious metals when 
envisioning treasures upon the earth and thus alter the text 
accordingly. Originally it is likely that just as both verbs, 
"break in" and "steal", refer to the same thieves, so both sub-- 
jects CTng and fiptHaic, would affect the identical material (pre- 
cious cloth), 34® Thus the translation "rust" is excluded at Mt . 

Having introduced the respective contexts and the inter- 
pretive problems, we will now Investigate the relationship 
between Jas. 5:2-3 and Mt . 6:19-21; Lk. 12:33b-34. When one 
places the texts in synoptic format, the divergent terminology is 
immediately obvious. Matthew depicts a treasure of fabric con- 
sumed (dicpaut^ij) by moth (cthq) and worms OpwaLc;)^^'^ and a treas- 
ure of metal stolen (KAerr-couCTLv ) by thieves (KhenxaL) who break 
into ((5 LopuaaouCTcy ) a house. James, on the other hand, describes 
a treasure (ttAoOxoq) of rotting (aeaiiTrei' ) food stuffs not 
included in the gospels, a treasure of clothing which is moth- 
eaten ianzd^puza) , and a treasure of metal which is not stolen 

345Quelich, Sermon, 326. 

^^^Thomas 76 has moth and worm although Craig L. Blom- 
berg, "Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of 
Thomas," Gos£el, Perspecjt ives 5:193,186 assigns it to Gnostic 
redaction as in the Gospel of Truth 33:16-17 and Thomas 9. 

347Lyjj.g includes only the moth, not the worms. 


( as in Matthew) but rusts (jfcaxtuxat) and will eat {ipayezai} the 
flesh of its owner. Absolutely none of the vocabulary utilized 
by James Is exactly comparable to the gospels. In fact in each 
description of the different treasures James employs a NT hapax 
legomenon: anjTU , arj'coPpwxoQ , and Kaxtow. The only word that 
James and the gospels have in common is the term "treasure", in 
which case James follows the verbal form found only in Matthew. 
Likewise, we encounter differences in the form (Matthew, impera- 
tive; James, indicative) and order of the material (James' ending 
is Matthew's beginning). Finally, the concluding gnomic saying 
located both in Matthew and Luke is missing in James. 

In spite of these verbal differences, an echo of part of 
the Jesus-saying in the gospels is in our opinion likely. The 
subject matter is identical. Both are warnings against riches; 
both describe the inevitable decay and deterioration of these 
treasures. It is possible that James omits the loss of wealth by 
stealing since he intends to save that description for the 
oppressor himself who in the next verse (5:4) is accused of 
stealing from the poor (literally, "kept back by fraud"). Fur- 
thermore, the dissimilar vocabulary should not be overemphasized 
since the language of Matthew and Luke likewise diverges at 
several points. Apparently both Luke and James have combined the 
saying of Jesus with other paraenetic teaching of the church. 
Luke inserts exhortations aimed at a radical lifestyle (selling 
your possessions) and the nourishment of the poor (giving alms) , 
thus emphasizing the temporal conditions necessary for an unfail- 
ing treasure in the heavens. James applies the same saying to 


the disintegrating earthly treasure and denounces the rich who 
fail to live out of the eternal treasure. Therefore, Luke offers 
a positive example of Christian behavior, while James condemns a 
deplorable evil with a negative illustration. Throughout this 
section James interlaces his exhortations with traditional lan- 
guage. In 5:4-5 James alludes to OT expressions (Dt, 24:15; Mai. 
3:5; Is. 5:9; Jer . 12:3 LXX), while at 5:1 he addresses the rich 
through a woe saying of Jesus. With these allusions in the con- 
text, would one not expect to encounter similar material at 5:2- 
3? If so, the closest parallel is that of Mt . 6:19-20 and Lk, 
12:33b. The clinching argument, we believe, is the use of the 
verb Bnaavpt^u) . In all likelihood James did not set out with the 
distinct purpose of alluding to a saying of Jesus in 5:2; he is 
only attempting to describe the present unjust situation with 
traditional prophetic language. But after he has depicted the 
rotten food, the moth-eaten garments, and the rusting gold and 
silver, then he remembers that Jesus had proclaimed the same mes- 
sage. With Jesus' saying in mind, he concludes, "they have laid 
up their treasures," indicating that Jesus' saying was being ful- 
filled by these rich oppressors. They have laid up treasures for 
the last days and, therefore, there will be no treasure in 
heaven; instead their flesh will be eaten like fire. The con- 
trast between eschatological fire and earthly treasures in the 
last days is similar to the eschatological treasure in heaven and 
temporal treasures on earth in Matthew. Thus James combines 


traditlonal language on the theme of wealth^^S ^^^th a reference 
to a saying of Jesus, 

Before we can be satisfied with this conclusion, we must 
investigate the counter proposals of Dibelius and Spitta who con- 
tend that the woes of 1 En. 94ff are the source of Jas . 5:2-3. 
Dibelius claims that 1 En. 94:8^49 ^s the best parallel since it 
immediately precedes a reference to "the day of slaughter", the 
phrase used in Jas. 5:5. However, we have determined that the 
presence of a similar parallel in Jer . 12:3 indicates that tradi- 
tional language is chosen when the rich are upbraided . ^50 
Spitta 's^^l proposal of 1 En. 97:8-10 demands greater attention: 

^ Woe to yoti who acquire silver and gold in unrighteousness, 
yet say, "We have increased in riches and have possessions 
and have acquired everything we have desired. ® And now let 
us do what we purposed: for we have gathered silver and many 
are the husbandmen in our houses and our granaries are [brim] 
full as with water." ^^ Yea, and like water your lies shall 
flow away; for riches shall not abide but speedily ascend 
from you; for ye have acqviired it all in unrighteousness, and 
ye shall be given over to a great curse. '^^2 

Enoch speaks both of riches (rrAouxy) and of gold and silver 

(XPUCTtoy Kol crpyupLov) like Jas. 5:3a, but this verbal similarity 

occurs naturally when two authors expound the same theme. Both 

describe a similar situation with Enoch reporting that the 

348>jj^g image of a treasure is commonplace in contexts 
about the judgment: Tob. 4:9; Sir. 29:11; 4 Ezr. 7:77; 8:33; 2 
Bar. 14:12; 24:1; Ps . Sol. 9:5(9); cf. Rom. 2:5. 

349iip^Qe to you, ye rich, for ye have trusted in your 
riches, and from your riches shall ye depart, because ye have not 
remembered the Most High in the days of your riches." Cf . 
Dibelius and Greeven, James , 237. 

35^Cf. ch. 2, section 3.4. 

351spitta, Zur Geschichte, II: 130. 

^^^charles' translation (APOT, II: 269) is from the 
Ethiopic version since he did not possess the Chester Beatty 
papyrus which contains 1 En. 97:6-104:13 and 106-107. 

acquisition of riches has come through unjust means while in Jas . 
5:4 the rich have kept back the salaries of their workers by 
fraud. Yet since the acquisition of wealth by unrighteous means 
had already become one of the most common criticisms in the ethi- 
cal tradition, 353 both Enoch and James have probably drawn upon 
traditional material. Finally, both 1 Enoch and James employ the 
verb Orjcjavpi^u . Yet the close verbal resemblance between 1 En. 
97:9 and Lk. 12:19,21 demonstrates that a Lucan dependence upon 
this Enoch passage is much more defensible than any allusion to 
it by Jas . 5 : 2-3 . 

Lk. 12:19,21 1 En. 97:8,9 

^^ Kal egfi xji 4'vxd P-OU • ° Kal e£ecxe . , , 

^ ax L apyvp lov xeOjfa_avj3_iKaii£u 
eu xoLQ OiiaavpoZc, nnuu 

4>vx^ , exei-Q ZLSA^.? 9Y£LiA ^^'~ QY.9.§A. E9.hh9. 

K£Lp.eua eiQ ezn TioAAa ... ep zaZc, OLKiaic, nptuv. 
21 OUTCJQ o £jicjau£i;,Cwy eavzu 
Kal fan elc, Beou 7t\ovxu)v . 

Although Lk . 12:19,21 is likely dependent upon 1 En. 97:8-10,354 
1 Enoch contains no description of the decay and deterioration of 
riches through such enemies as moths, rot, worms, rust, or rob- 
bery as we encounter in Jas. 5:2-3 and Mt . 6:19-21; Lk. 12:33b- 
34. Therefore the amount of divergent material is greater than 
the vocabulary that is congruent . Only insofar as certain themes 
and terminology have become traditional material for warnings 

353j^jnos 5:11-12; 8:4-6; Mlc . 2:2; Is. 3 : 10 (LXX ) , 14-15 ; 
Wis. 2:10-20; Prov. 1:11; Ps . 37:14,32; 1 En. 94:6-7; 96:5,7-8; 
98:12-15; 99:15; 100:7. Cf, Dlbelius and Greeven, James, 239- 
240; Laws, J.a!ives, 204. 

354cf_ s. Aalen, "St. Luke's Gospel and the Last Chapters 
of 1 Enoch," NTS 13(1966-67): 4-5; George W.E. Nickelsburg, 
"Riches, the Rich, and God's Judgment in 1 Enoch 92-105 and the 
Gospel according to Luke," NTS 25(1978-79): 329-330,334-337. 


against wealth can 1 En. 94:8-9 and 97:8-10 be said to function 
as a source for Jas . 5:2-3. 

In his dissertation on the use of the OT in the Catholic 
epistles, Gotaas suggests that "the end of verse 3 seems to be an 
allusion to the "treasured up' retribution of Proverbs 1:18. "■'355 
Possible evidence supporting Prov. 1:18 as the source of Jas. 5:3 
includes the facts that 1) James already quotes from the book of 
Proverbs at 4:6 (Prov. 3:34) and 5:20 (Prov. 10:12); 2) the OT 
references in James are based upon the LXX version; 3) Jas. 5:6 
specifically mentions unjust murder as does Prov, 1:11,18; 4) 
"the just man" in each case is the one taken advantage of (Prov. 
1:11; Jas. 5:6); and 5) each contains a prophetic denunciation 
and prediction of destruction against the oppressor. On the 
other hand, this supportive evidence is undermined by other vital 
facts: 1) the OT passage speaks against murder, but James con- 
demns the wealthy; 2) there is nothing mentioned about different 
types of wealth (rotten riches, moth-eaten garments, corroded 
gold and silver) in Prov. 1:18 as in James; and 3) Proverbs 
portrays a positive evaluation of wealth whereas James is con- 
sistently negative in his appraisal , 256 .jj^g negative connotation 
given to wealth in the gospel parallels fits much better this 
Important emphasis of James. To verify this supposition we will 
now Investigate the close similarities between James and Jesus on 
the subject of riches. 

^^^Gotaas, OT in James, 304 is referring to the LXX 
translation, "For they that are concerned in murder store up 
evils for themselves" rather than the MT , "but these men lie in 
wait for their own blood." 

"^^^Cf. Prov. 13:22 LXX, where the same word dincraupi^us is 


James' instruction on wealth and the wealthy (1:9-11; 
2:1-7; 5:1-6) includes the following elements: 

1) James continues the emphasis of the pious poor tradition begun 
during the intertestamental period so that the term "poor" is 
virtually identical in his mind with "Christian" . 357 

2) Throughout the epistle only the evil deeds of the rich (2:6-7; 
5:4-6) and their condemnation (1:11; 2:5 by implication; 5:1-3) 
are stressed. Nowhere is an attitude of repentance expected from 
the rich. 3^^ This does not necessarily entail that repentance and 
a changed lifestyle are not possible, but James' emphasis is 
prophetic denunciation. 

3) The community's attitude toward the rich should exclude favor- 
itism (2:1-4). Although James is alarmed ' at the advances which 
the rich have made into the Christian churches, nowhere do we 
encounter any exhortations to isolationism or withdrawal from the 
wealthy. 2^^ Instead, James addresses the rich directly (5:1-6) 
and pictures them as possible participants in worship services 
(2:2-4) . 

What is the background and source of James' teaching on 
the subject of wealth? Certain aspects of this theme surely 

'^^'^Cf. Davids, James, 45; Dibelius and Greeven, James, 

^'^^^James depicts the downfall of the rich in Jas. 1:11 
and not an heroic act of renunciation. Supporters of the heroic 
view of Jas. 1:9-11 like Adamson, J,araes, 30 contend that the des- 
cription of the downfall of the rich is "to turn a sincere rich 
Christian to humbleness." We support the ironic interpretation 
based upon 1) the similarities with Jewish thought where the 
pious poor are contrasted with the lawless rich even though both 
belong to Israel; and 2) the remaining contexts within the 
Epistle of James which speak embitteredly against the rich and 
fail to extend any expectation of an alteration of lifestyle. 

359cf. Laws, James, 104. 


derive from the actual events within the community of James: the 
poor are those who are rich in faith (2:5); the rich are dragging 
the poor to court (2:6), slandering the honorable name with which 
the community is identified (2:7), oppressing their laborers 
(5:4), and living an excessively indulgent lifestyle (5:5). Fur- 
thermore, the wealthy could be receiving the best seats at the 
worship services although the word "suppose" at 2:2 would more 
naturally imply a hypothetical situation. ^^0 In addition to this 
use of contemporary experiences, James chooses traditional images 
from Jewish religious literature employing the language of Is. 
40:6b-8 in l:10b-ll, Lev. 19:15 at 2:9, and. many parallel 
expressions in the OT and intertestamental literature at 5:1-6. 

However, the role of the teaching of Jesus is especially 
important to the development of James' thinking about riches. 
Numerous parallels in their doctrine of wealth point to James' 
similar involvement in the renewal of the piety-poverty tradi- 
tion. 361 Both proclaim an imminent reversal of fates for the rich 
and poor ( Jas . 1:9-- 11; 2:5; Mt . 5:3 par.; Lk . 12:13-21; 16:25). 
They employ the language of prophetic denunciation (Jas. 5:1; Lk. 
6:24) and the coming of the kingdom (Jas. 2:5; Mk . 10:25 par.) 
because poverty and wealth are considered by both as religious 
concepts. Since the rich person lives without God and acts 
against God (Jas. 2:5,7; Lk . 12:16ff; 16:19ff), the attack is on 

2^^An anticipatory conditional sentence with eau and the 
subjunctive is employed. Dibelius, Laws, and Davids favor a 
hypothetical possibility while Adamson and Relcke picture an 
actual experience, 

361j3avids, James, 44; Dibelius and Greeven, James, 42; 
MuBner , Jacobusbrief , 83-84. 

the rich qua rich (Jas, 5:1-6; Mk. 10:23-28 par.)- The rich 
man's greater potential for doing good works with his abundance 
of resources is nowhere implied, nor is there any distinction 
between riches and the love of riches as in 1 Tim, 6:10. The 
rich, therefore, stand on the edge or outside of the community, 
going away sorrowful, since they have great possessions (Mk. 
10:22 par.). The primary motive for addressing the rich is to 
warn disciples and potential followers of the dangers of wealth. 
They are cautioned about covetousness (Jas. 4:3; Lk. 12:15), a 
divided heart (Jas. 4:4; Mt . 6:24 par.), anxiety (Lk. 12:22ff 
par.), showing partiality (Jas. 2:1-4), and a delight in riches 
which chokes the word (Mk. 4:19 par.). The storing up of wealth 
is especially forbidden: Jesus tells a parable against building 
bigger barns ( Lk . 12:15-21) and insists on the laying up of 
treasures in heaven (Mt , 6:19-21 par.), while James announces 
that the rich will be unable to enjoy any of their stored-up 
treasures since the last days are upon them (5:3). Finally, the 
extravagant lifestyle of the rich is pictured and then condemned. 
Jesus portrays Nevr]c, (p"^^) as "feasting sumptously every day" 
(Lk. 16:19) and the rich person in Lk. 12:19 as saying, "Soul, 
you have ample goods laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, 
drink, be merry." James likewise depicts their excessive 
luxurious lifestyle (5:5), oppression (2:6; 5:4), and murder of 
the just (5:6) which results in a day of slaughter. The end of 
the story is always the complete destruction of what the rich 
valued. The overabundance of his possessions rot and tarnish 
(Jas. 5:2); they are moth-eaten (Jas, 5:2; Mt . 6:19 par.) and 


stolen (Mt. 6:19 par.). The rich man himself is consumed with 
fire ( Jas . 5:4; Lk . 16:24-28); he withers like a parched flower 
(Jas. 1:11); his soul is required of him (Lk. 12:20). God has 
chosen the poor (Jas. 2:5); He takes their side (Mt. 5:3 par,). 

In fact, contradictions between their approach towards 
wealth are practically nonexistent ; 3®2 ^-^q differences lie only 
in emphasis. Whereas James consistently condemns the wealthy, 
Jesus imparts positive instructions about economic generosity, 
thus offering an alternative to excessive wealth (Lk. 12:33; 
19:8; Mt . 19:21; 6:22-23). ^63 James continually underscores 
specific evils which the rich have effectuated (legal oppression 
2:6, blasphemy 2:7, fraud 5:4, killing the righteous 5:6). On 
the contrary, the problem with the rich in the gospels is usually 
their negligence and inability to perceive what positive actions 
are required of them.-^^^ Thus, whereas James and Jesus maintain 
their Individual areas of emphasis, the similarities in their 
teaching about wealth are of primary importance. We can there- 
fore safely conclude that James was an "energetic representative 

~^^^Mayor, James, clxxi calls attention to one apparent 
contradiction when James "tries to excite the anger of his 
readers against the rich, who had maltreated them, instead of 
reminding them that their duty was to love their enemies and to 
do good to them that hated them." However, Jesus never sets love 
of enemy over against an attitude of anger toward injustice and 
those who practice evil. 

■^^^It is possible that James hints at rich person's 
neglect of almsgiving in the expression "rust will be evidence 
against you" (5:3), but his failure to state this explicitly 
indicates a preference not to stress this theme. Cf . Dlbelius 
and Greeven, James , 236. 

-^^^Dives, for instance, lives completely untouched by 
Lazarus' needs (Lk. 12:21). 


of the ancient, recently revitalized pride of the Poor"365 vfhose 
pioneer for the church was Jesus himself. 

In order to substantiate our claim that Jesus' teaching 
in Mt . 6:19-21; Lk . 12:33b-34 is the source of Jas . 2:2-3, we 
will investigate the early church's quoting of these texts to 
determine the terminological precision necessary to confirm a 
saying as an allusion to a logion of Jesus. Mt . 6:19-20 is 
referred to by Justin Martyr in 1 Apol. 15:11. Because Justin's 
specified purpose in this section is to rehearse the teaching of 
Jesus, his quote of Mt. 6:19-20, as expected, is very close to 
the gospel text. 366 

1 Apol . 15:11 
upeTc; 6e jiq dricxavp Igexe 

Kal Kijcrxal. 

ey xoZq ovpauolc, , ojigy 

Mt. 6:19-20 

ikb. §.R2£RR '^^^\£ 
vp-Zu Qna-avpouc, enl_ xr|^ zilS, » 

9.E2P.. ^.RSl Kg_l §I^<Z.kS>- °.iSil_kl_?_k 

E£f.L onou KAenxai 

(5 lopuaaouCTLy Kal KAenxovcjLP • 

_?_¥, 9]i.BJ^K^ ' 9JI.9R 

oi?.S.£ 2ilS, 9.P„I^ '§£M£.1£. .4,$Sii.L? §ii 

Kal OTTOU KXenxai ov 

S Lopvcxaovaih' oude KAenxovcxLv ' 

Later Clement of Alexandria (St^rom. 4,33,4 and 7) quotes both Mt . 
6:19 and Lk. 12:33 in the same context, thus indicating that he 
knew them as separate sayings In distinct gospels. The Gospel of 
Thomas 76367 (^qqq ^ot harmonize similar material from different 

365]3j^]-,Q2ius and Greeven, James, 45. 

366cf, Arthur J. Bellinzoni, The Sa^yings o_f Jesus i,n the 
Writings of Justin Martyr , 61 . 

3°^ Jesus said, "The kingdom of the Father is like a mer- 
chant who had a consignment of merchandise and who discovered a 
pearl. That merchant was shrewd. He sold the merchandise and 
bought the pearl alone for himself. You too seek his unfailing 
and enduring treasure where no moth comes near to devour and no 
worm destroys." 

gospels but merely combines this saying with other Jesus-material 
to give new meaning (like Luke) to the concept "unfailing treas- 
ure". For Luke the treasure becomes like a purse that does not 
grow old, while for Thomas the treasure is identified with the 
pearl of great price. ^^^ ipj-^g form of the allusion to the gospels 
in Jas. 5:2-3 has been affected, on the other hand, by the devel- 
opment of the church's ethical teaching. Considering the 
similarities between such passages as Mt . 6:19-34, Jas. 5:1-6, 1 
Tim. 6:6-11, 1 Pet. 5:6, and Barn. 19:2, Riesenf eld^^^ has 
demonstrated that the paraenesis of the church molded the words 
of Jesus by mixing them with other traditional ethical material 
and applying them to specific settings within the life of the 
developing church. That a particular saying of the Jesus- 
tradition is in the mind of James is evidenced by 1) similar sub- 
ject matter as well as some verbal connections; 2) the identical 
approach to the subject of wealth in the teachings of James and 
Jesus; 3} another allusion to a saying of Jesus at 5:1 within 
this traditional material; and 4) the support given by numerous 
exegetes in the last centuries where this is the fifth most fre- 
quently cited parallel between James and the Synoptic gospels (42 
out of 60 authors). 2^^ 

"®^Even Clement of Alexandria can be said to have 
inserted his own emphasis into the meaning of treasure since in 
between his quotations of the gospels he says, "But our true 
"treasure" is where what is allied to our mind is, since it bes- 
tows the communicative power of righteousness ..." (St_r9m. 
4,33,5-6) Wilson, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, II: 415. 

^^^Harold Riesenfeld, "Vom Schatzesammeln und Sorgen -~ 
ein Thema ur chr i s t 1 i scher Paranese zu Mt . vi. 19-34," 
Neo_test_ament_ica et Patristica, 57. 

"^^^^^^or strong support see especially the English-speaking 
authors: Knowling, JameS' 118; Davids, James , 44; Henry Alford, 
"James," The Greek Testament, IV: 321. 


6.0 The Synoptic Parallels in the Primitive Church Order 

of Jas. 5:7-20 

The return to James' customary address d<5eA<f»oc at 5:7 
indicates that the prophetic denunciations of 4:13-5:6 are ended. 
Now James develops several loosely knit themes on the subject of 
eschatology and the activities of the church. To explain the 
abruptness of the change of content Francis has argued that oaths 
as well as health wishes (Jas. 5:13-18) are employed as conclu- 
sions to literary epistles . ^'^^ We prefer to conceive the organi- 
zational arrangement of Jas. 5:7-20 as the presentation of a 
primitive church order^'^S Iqss developed than Did. 7-16. Just as 
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles combines instruction on bap- 
tism (Did. 7), fasting (8), prayers of thanksgiving at the 
eucharist (9-10), the receiving of prophets (11-13), confession 
of sins and reconciliation (14) , the character qualities of 
church leaders (15), and the last things (16) into a primitive 
church order, so James groups together paraenetic exhortations 
about the last days (5:7-11), the forbidding of oaths (5:12), the 
healing ministry of the church (5:13-15), confession of sins and 
prayer (5:15-18), and the reconciliation of the erring (5:19-20. 

^"^ ■'■Franc is, "Form and Function," 125. Cf. Davids, James, 

^'^^Reicke, James , 8 calls it a "manual of discipline". 
This suggestion is preferable to attempts to tie these verses 
together by the theme of patience (patience for the end times, 
not swearing out of impatience, patience in sickness, and not 
backsliding when impatient) or as the usual conclusion of an 
epistle. The instruction to the sick is really not a health 
wish nor is the call to prayer similar A:o the requests for prayer 
at the conclusion of epistles. Jas. 5:19-20 does not end the 
book because it reflects James' purpose, but because matters of 
discipline are commonly placed at the end of a church order. 


Structurally , the return to the theme of endurance ( u/rojuoyr/ ) in 
5:7-11 forms an inclusio with Jas . 1:2-15. 

A. 5:7-11 Eschatology. 

1. 5:7-8 Patience and the eschaton (use address, "brethren"), 

a. 5:7a Exhortation to patience. 

b. 5:7b Illustration from nature, 

c. 5:8a Exhortation to patience and establishing your hearts. 

d. 5:8b Eschatological grounding of the exhortation. 

2. 5:9 Grumbling and the eschaton (repeated address, 

"brethren" ) , 

a. 5:9a Exhortation against grumbling. 

b. 5:9b Eschatological grounding of the exhortation, 

3. 5:10-11 Examples of suffering and patience (repeated 

address, "brethren"). 

a. 5:10 The example of the OT prophets. 

b. 5:11a Those who endure are blessed. 

c. 5:11b The example of Job and the Lord's mercy. 

B. 5:12 Oaths (use address, "brethren"): Allusion to a saying of 

Jesus in Mt . 5:33-37. 

C. 5:13-18 Prayer, confession of sins, and healing. 

1. 5:13a Instruction to the suffering: pray. 

2. 5:13b Instruction to the cheerful: sing. 

3. 5:14-18 Instruction to the sick. 

a. 5 

b. 5 

c . 5 

d. 5 

14-15 Let the elders pray and anoint with oil. 
16a Confession of sins. 

15b Aphorism about the righteous man (like 5:6). 
17-18 The example of Elijah. 

D, 5:19-20 Backsliders (use address, "brethren"). 


6.1 Jas. 5:10-lla Mt , 5:11,12b Lk. 6:22,23b 

v-noSeiyiia Aa|3exe, ^^b ouxwq yap ^^^ KQta tor avxa yap 

adeAcpo i , 

zriQ KaKonad Lac, e6iu)E.ap enoiovv 

Kal xrJQ paKpoOuju lag 

1.9A^ Trpo(pt]xac, Io^£. II£LO^Lg& xoiQ Trpoc^qxaK; 

OL eAaAncrav eu xO xouc, npo viiup . ol naxepeq avxuv . 

OuOliaXi KUpLOV, 

lla^^Qj) jjgKOjOjLCofiev ^■^ S«KgpiOL eaze ^ ^ ^2 |jaKajD_tol ecce oxav^ 
xouQ uTTO^e Lvayxaq- oxav ove td icruaiy u^ac; |a LanCTcja 1 1- ujaac; ... Kal 

oxai^ a(papLcnj(7Lu, 
Kal c5 LuSdjCTLv Kal 6uei6iaiocrLu 

Kal eiTTucTiy nav Kal eK/SdAucJLv x6 

7Tovr7p6v Ka9 ' V]iuv ... ofop,a Ujawv cjq, novripou 
eueKCv eiiov . evsKa xov ulou 

xov audpunov ' 

In order to recommend patience in a situation of extended 

waiting filled with the oppression described in 5:1-6, James 

appeals to the example of a farmer who patiently tarries for the 

rains to ripen his harvest (5:7). He reminds his readers that 

the period of delay will not continiie indefinitely since "the 

coming of the Lord is at hand" (5:8-9). Further encouragement 

comes from the example of the steadfast prophets and the story of 

Job where the Lord is compassionate and merciful in the end. 373 

This reference to OT models is a common phenomenon in James as 

illustrated by his appeal to Abraham (2:21-23), Rahab (2:25), and 

Elijah (5 : 17-18) . 

^'^'^Some authors (cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James, 247, n. 
32) contend that "the end of the Lord" in 5:11 refers to the end 
of Jesus' life (i.e. suffering and death). Thus the plural in 
5:11a ("those who were steadfast") could be accounted for by set- 
ting the example of Jesus alongside that of Job. But this inter- 
pretation breaks the continuity between the two uses of the term 
"Lord" in this verse. Others understand x6 xeAog Kvpiov to mean 
"the purpose of the Lord" (Mitton, James , 189; RSV; JB) , a less 
usual meaning of xeAoQ. Since the reference is to Job, it is 
more likely that the happy outcome of the story is in the mind of 
James. Cf. Robert P. Gordon, "KAI TO TEAOE KYPIOY EIAETE (JAS, 
V. 11)," JThS 26(1975): 91-92. 


When we compare Jas. 5:10-11 with the gospel parallels, 
it is immediately obvious that the prophets are given an exem- 
plary role in each case. Whereas in 1 Pet. 2:21-25, 1 Thess. 
1:6, 1 Cor. 11:1, and Eph, 5:2 Jesus is specified as the para- 
digm, in James as well as the gospels the OT prophets are the 
pattern. Therefore, one might argue that James' reference to the 
prophets is more like Jesus' manner of speaking than that of the 
church. Moreover a situation of extreme suffering is assumed in 
both. In the gospels the disciples are reviled (Mt. and Lk . } , 
spoken about evilly (Mt . and Lk,), persecuted ( Mt . ) , excluded 
(Lk.), and hated (Lk.); in Jas, 5:10 the oppression of the rich 
prompts the introduction of encouraging examples of patient suf- 
fering. In each context the theme of wealth and poverty is also 
mentioned (Jas. 5:1-6; Mt . 5:3; Lk. 6:20). Besides content 
similarities, each saying is in the form of a jiaKapioc, statement. 
Admittedly the emphasis of each beatitude is different; in James 
the blessing is placed upon the steadfast while in the gospels 
the reviled, persecuted disciples are designated happy (NEB). 
Yet one might argue that an attitude of steadfastness is implied 
in each of the specifics of the gospel descriptions since per- 
secution needs to be endured. 

Upon closer examination it becomes obvious that James and 
Jesus are utilizing the example of the prophets quite differ- 
ently. James is looking back at the prophets for strength in 
present struggles. The gospels, however, speak about how the 
prophets have been treated by the people of Israel (of. also Lk , 
11:47,50-51; Mt . 23:37). In James the prophets are treated posi- 


tively as examples to emulate, while in the gospels the prophets 
are negative examples of a shameful past in Israel's history 
which is about to be repeated. This opposite function assigned 
to the prophets clearly makes it very difficult to assiime any 
allusion to Jesus' words. In addition to this different emphasis 
and use of the prophets, the specifics are in each case substan- 
tially divergent. The two main exemplary descriptions utilized 
to designate the prophets (models of suffering, KaKonaO Lac,, and 
patience, iiaKpo9vp.iac,) are missing in the gospels,' Moreover, the 
jiaKapioc, statement is better explained as an allusion to an ear- 
lier reference in the Epistle of James (1:12) where those who 
persevere under trial are called blessed. The first person 
plural ("We. -call those blessed who were steadfast") indicates 
that James himself or his community is designating these as 
blessed. The occurrence of the verb UTiojLieyu at both 1:12 and 
5:11 substantiates our claim that James is alluding to his own 
particular theme. 

Finally, parallels with Jas . 5:10-11 are not limited to 
the gospels. Dibelius points out that "one must keep in mind how 
common the notion of the prophets as martyrs was during this 
period" . '^'^4 Furthermore, contemporary literature is replete with 
references to the prophets as positive paradigms similar to 
James' epistle. 3'?5 r^j^^ placing of a blessing upon those who 

^'^ '^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 244. 

S'^^sir. 44:1b; 2 Mac. 6:20,31; 4 Mac. 17:23; Jn. 13:15; 1 
CI. 5:1; 6:1; 46:1; 63:1; Jos . Bel J, . 6:103; Philo, R er . Div. Eev. 
256. Cf. Davids, James, 185. 


endure struggles was familiar and commonplace as well. 376 
Finally, the addition of Job ( Jas . 5:11b) proves that James was 
thinking about OT figures rather than a specific saying of 
Jesus. 377 Therefore, when James explains that they have already 
heard of the steadfastness of these figures (5:11), he is proba- 
bly alluding to his readers' upbringing with the stories of the 
OT heroes of faith. Therefore, it is not "most natural to asso- 
ciate such words with our Lord's own Beatitudes" as Knowling con- 
tends. '^'^^ Endurance is specifically a Jamesian emphasis. Not 
only is there a close parallel at 1:12, but the theme of 67rop.ou1^ 
was of such importance that he begins and ends his epistle with a 
rehearsal of its good qualities. Therefore, no specific source 
is being utilized by James although the themes of endurance, 
blessedness, and patience are common to paraenetic literature. 

376j;,aws, James, 67 refers to Dan, 12:12; Zech. 6:14 LXX; 
4 Mac. 7:22; Mk , 13:13; Rev, 2:2f,10; Herm,, Vis, 2,2,7. Jesus 
continues this tradition in Mt , 10:22; 24:13; Lk. 21:19, 

3'^'^Another indication of the Jewish background is the 
fact that KaKonaeLa is employed in the LXX at Mai, 1:13; 2 Mac, 
2:26; and 4 Mac, 9:8 (with bnoixovr}) . while in the NT it is a 
hapax legomenon. Furthermore, Laws,, 67 points out that at 
1:12 "James uses the LXX style of denoting the recipient of 
blessing by noun and adjectival clause rather than the 
participial phrase used in other NT macarisms, e.g. Matt. v. 3ff; 
Jn. XX, 29; Rev. i, 3," 

^"^^Knovillng, James, 131-132. 


6.2 Jas. 5:12 Mt , 5:33-37 

TrdAiy nKOUCTate 6t l kppeQr) tolq apxcrioLQ- 

o6k ett LopKc'iCTe lq, 
12a drrodwae tc, de x5 icuptcu xouq opKOUQ ctou , 

rrpo jrayxuv de , cxoeKc^ol ^^ eyu cSe Aeyw i)]xiu 
p,ou , |jjj oiivuexe gn oiiOcrof^^oAuQ " 

6x L Qpovoc, eoxiv xod Qeov , 

ox t UTTorrod LOi^ ecrxtv ztjv iroduj^ auxou, 
liQJL§ aAAop' XLua opxoy • iilLxe etc; ' lepoaoAuiiia, 

ox L TToAtQ eaxLv xou peycrAou paacAewc;, 
36 li^^xe ^v xp Ke$aAn aou 6ja6CT)7<;, 
6x c ou Svuaaai p-Lau xpixa XevKiiu 
notricxai q iieXaiuau . 

x6 ual ygl Kal x6 ou gv_ ual tiai, ou ov- 

12a (^yQ pj^ U7TO Kpiaiv xo de irepLO'croy xouxwt' sk xov novripou 

neanxe . eax n^ . 

Jas. 5:12 appears to be an isolated saying loosely 
attached to the preceding and following contexts which are 
developed into a primitive church order. The <Se calls attention 
to new material as does the retxirn to James' normal introductory 
formulation, ordeAc^oL i.iou."^'^® The introductory phrase Txpo nauxu>v. 
has been interpreted in a multitude of ways. Most exegetes 
believe that "above all" calls attention to the significance of 
this saying, but it is contested whether its superior importance 
is to the following instructions^SO pj. ^.j^g preceding context . ^^-'■ 
A second view posits Trpo nauxcju as a signal for a verbum Chrlsti 

3'^9 James' omission of "my brethren" at v. 13 probably 
indicates that the prohibition of oaths should be tied together 
with the church order comments on prayer etc. However, c3f<5eA4>o( 
might have been omitted at 5:13 because 5:12 was so short. 

380Qj^osheide, Jakobus, 410. Laws, James, 220, however, 
applies this introduction to the whole context of vv, 12-18 con- 
tending that likewise 1 Pet. 4:8 does not exalt mutual love over 
watching and praying but emphasizes the instructions of vv. 9-11. 

"^^^Reicke, James , 56, Adamson, James , 194-195 relates it 
specifically to the errors of the tongue in v. 9, but Dibelius 
and Greeven, James, 242 posit only a catchword connection 
(Kptenxe / KpLaiv) . 


so that Mt . 5:34 "Do not swear at all (oAwq)" is thought to have 
been transposed into "above all, do not swear" at some point in 
the history of the transmission of this saying of Jesus. ^82 
Others conjecture that this phrase originated in another (now 
irrecoverable) context where 5:12 in only a fragment of a longer 
quote. 38-' in our opinion, the parallel expression near the end of 
1 Peter (4:8) as well as examples from papyri^S^ indicate that 
Trpo nauxuu is a technique introducing a peculiar emphasis of the 
author near the conclusion of coorespondence . It would thus 
function like an asterisk in modern printing to call attention to 
an important theme. 385 

James' prohibition against swearing consists of two oath 
formulas, "either by heaven or by earth," followed by a third 
generalizing formula, "or with any other oath," to include every 
other possibility. James then offers a positive alternative 
("but let your yes be yes and your no be no") followed by a pur- 
pose clause ("that you may not fall under condemnation"). Mt . 
5:33-~37, on the other hand, introduces the oath prohibition in 
the form of an antithesis (as in 5:21,27,31,38,43) drawn from OT 
teaching. Matthew includes four specific oath formulas each fol- 
lowed by a ox c clause indicating the reason for the prohibition: 

382Qjpyg2ewlcz , "Jacques et Matthieu," 51. Cf, also 
Alfred Resch, A ussercanonische Paralle ltexte zu den Evangelien, 
I: 99; Mayor, James , 160. 

383oesterley, "James," 472-473. 

3^*Cf. Jean Cantinat, Les Epltres de Saint JacgiJies et de 
Sairit Jude , 241; Knowling, James , 135. 

3°^Cf, Mitton, James, 191. Paul Minear, "Yes or No, the 
Demand for Honesty in the Early Church," NovT 13(1971): 7 sug- 
gests that "transparent honesty may have seemed especially diffi- 
cult and urgent as an expression of patience in the midst of per- 
secution and suffering (v. 6,10,13)." 


^^ either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 

•^^ or by the earth, for it is his footstool, 

or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, 

•■^^ And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one 

hair white or black. 

The last prohibition (5:36) appears to be a loosely attached 
addition to the original saying since a subjunctive is inserted 
(oiioarjc,) rather than the infinitive (ojuoaai), and a singular pro- 
noun is chosen (aou) rather than the plural (ufjcv). Mt . 5:37a 
offers a positive alternative to the previously mentioned oaths 
similar to Jas . 5:12c. Finally, Mt . 5:37b warns that any addi- 
tions to this positive alternative have their origin in evil or 
the evil one. In a somewhat parallel fashion Jas, 5:12d warns 
that condemnation will result if this instruction is not heeded. 

The most knotty problem with which exegetes have wrestled 
is the significance given to the alteration in meaning, if any, 
between Matthew's eaxw 6e 6 AoyoQ upwv val i^ai, ov ov and the 
phrase rixu 6e upSy xo val val kol to ov ov in James. ^^^ Because 
James employs the definite article before yal val and ov ov , 
scholars are agreed that he is advocating truth-telling ("but let 
your yes be yes and your no be no") and not any alternative oath 
formulation. Over the meaning of Matthew's language, however, 
interpreters are sharply divided, some contending that Matthew 

386biqp 432.1 is incorrect when it asserts, "In Mt . 5:37 
eaxui Se 6 Xoyoc, vp.uv ual val, ov ov is a corrupt variant for the 
well-attested and correct reading eaxw <5e up5y to val yal kqI to 

ou ou (0 al. 

like James advises truth-tell ing^^'^ by using a Semitic construc- 
tion of intensification, while others attest that a simple oath 
formula'^®^ ("yes, yes" or "no, no") is being recommended in lieu 
of certain forbidden oaths. The following arguments have been 
employed in support of val vaL , ov ou as a surrogate oath for- 
mula : 

1 ) Matthew demands that oaths not include the name of God or a 
substitute for God's name. By appealing to Is, 66:1 and Ps . 48:2 
within the ox t clauses Matthew proves that oaths by heaven, 
earth, and Jerusalem are a substitute for the divine name.-^^^ 
Therefore, in place of these inadequate oaths, Matthew offers an 
alternative valid oath. 

2) Matthew's addition in 5:37b "anything more than this" cannot 
refer to "speaking something beyond and above the truth" but must 
designate words that go beyond this simple oath formula "yes, 
yes" or "no , no" . 

. ■ 387pgj^2 2oughby G, Allen, Gospel Acc^_ to S_j_ Matthew, 54; 
Davids, James, 190; Jeremias, NT Theology, 2 20; Ernst Kutsch, 
"Eure Rede aber sei ja ja, nein, nein," EvTh 20(1960): 209; Alan 
McNeile, The £osp_el ace, to St. Matthew, 68; Moulton and Howard, 
Grammar, II: 154; MuBner , Jakobusbrie f , 215-216; Ernst Percy, D^i^e 
Botschaf t Jesus, 147; Alolf von Schlatter, Der Eyange list .Mat^- 
thaus, 183; Gustav Stahlin, "Zum Gebrauch von Beteuerungsf ormeln 
im Neuen Testament," NgvT 5(1962): 119; Charles C, Torrey, The. 
Four Gg^soels, 291; Theodor Zahn, ILYMi2®iiJil §:S3. M^tthaus, 248. 

"^^^Herbert Braun, Spat judlsch-haretischer und f ruhchrist- 
licher Radlkalismus II: 80 ,~ h. '6; Dibeliiis and Greeven', Jajnes, 
250-251, n. 55; Guelich, Sermon , 217; Heinrich J. Holtzmann, Die 
Synoptiker , 110; Klostermann, Ma tthau s-Evangellum, 47; Ernst Loh- 
meyer. Das Evangelium des Matthaus, 134; Manson, Sayinas, 159; 
Meyer, Ril,se_l, 85; Julius Schniewind, Das Eva ngelium nach Mat- 
thaus, 63; Wolfgang Schrage, "Der Jakobusbrief , " in Horst Balz 
und Wolfgang Schrage, D_ie kajzhglischen Br_iefe, 11; George 
Strecker, Der Weg der Gerechtig kelt : Unter suc h ung zur Theologie 
des Matthaus, 133-134. 

^"^s, 66:1 indicates that heaven and earth refer to God 
himself and Ps . 48:2 demonstrates that Jerusalem alludes to God, 
the great king. 

;3 7- 

3) Since Matthew frequently transforms Jesus' words into a new 
law for the church, -^^O ^-^q ^q^^ oath formula is another example of 
this Matthean tendency. 

4) Evidence that Matthew does not reject all oaths is supplied by 
Mt . 23:16-22, where in opposition to all casuistic distinctions 
between oaths, it is asserted that every oath must in fact be 
carried out . 

5) The possibility that "yes, yes" and "no, no" are oath formulas 

is reinforced by parallels in Jewish literature, 2 En, 49:1 

(Slavonic Enoch), written according to Charles between 30 BC and 

70 AD,--^^^ includes a remarkable parallel to Mt. 5:34-37. 

I swear to you, my children, but I swear not by any oath, 
neither by heaven nor by earth, nor by any other creature 
which God created. The Lord said: "There is no oath in me, 
nor injustice, but truth." If there is no truth in men, let 
them swear by the words "yea, yea" or else "nay, nay". 

The Rabbinic tractate Shebuoth 36a discusses the question whether 

yes and no are oaths and finally decides that if they are 

repeated twice, then they are legitimate oaths. -^^^ Furthermore, 

in the Mechilta 66a on Ex. 20:1-2 the Israelites swear an oath in 

response to the commandments, "The Israelites answered, ~Yea, 

yea' and ~nay nay' to the commands at Sinai. "393 

^Q'^Cf Dibelius and Greeven, Jame^, 251. 

391charles, APOT, II: 429. It was written after 30 BC , 
for it makes use of Sirach, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Wisdom but 
before 70 AD since the temple is still standing. 

392iip_ Eleazar said, ~No' is an oath; *Yes' is an oath 
... Said Raba: But only if he said ~'No! No!' twice; or he said 
'Yes! Yes!' twice." 

39 3Montef lore , Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings , 


There are equally strong arguments supporting the thesis 

that Matthew prohibits the use of oaths and advocates merely 

telling the truth: 

1) Even though the grammar of Mt . 5:37 does not contain the 

definite article as Jas . 5:12, the two expressions have an 

identical meaning since the second uai and ov only add emphasis 

to the first occurrence of these words. Instead of interpreting 

the double yes and no as a predicate, the repetition should be 

regarded as a Semitic construction of intensification similar to 

the reiteration of aiir^v for the purpose of emphasis. ^^^ A second 

possible explanation for the doubling is found in the Semitic 

technique to express distribution. Jeremias asserts: 

Rather the doubling of the vaL or ou in Matt. 5:37 will be a 
Semltism. There is no exact equivalent in Semitic languages 
for our distribution "each", "on each occasion", "each time", 
and so they have to resort to reiteration to express a dis- 
tribution. The saying therefore means: "Always consider your 
yes a yes and your no a no,"^®^ 

These explanations offer an alternative to viewing this wording 

as an oath, with the first suggestion of added emphasis being the 

most likely. 396 

394cf. StrB I: 333; Kutsch, " Ja ja, nein, nein, " 210; 
Moulton and Howard, G£aiaffla£ / II : 154. Davids, James, 190 
believes this phrase is saying, "let your word be (an outer) yes 
(which is truly an inner) yes." 

395 Jeremias, NT TheoifiaLY' 220. 

396.jij^g principle of distribution applies to the dublica- 
tion of numbers (Gen. 7:3,9; Num. 31:4; 34:18 MT; Mk. 6:7) and 
groups (Ex. 8:14(10); 2 Kings 17:29; Mk. 6:39-40; Herra., Sim. 
8,2,8; 8,4,2), but there is little evidence for a broader appli- 
cation. Considered "vulgar Greek" by Blass and Debrunner ( BDF 
248.1 and 493.2), it would play no part in the excellent Greek of 
James . 

2) When Paul in 2 Cor. 1:17 writes xd yal val kql to ov ou , it is 
the equivalent of pal kqI ou in v. 18. ^^"^ Thus we have a second 
witness besides Mt . 5:37 that this duplication of yes and no can 
be understood emphatically rather than as an oath formula. -398 

3) When Mt . 5:34a (|in 6p,6aaL oAii^c;) is understood as demanding 
absolute truth- tell ing without the need of an oath, then the 
introduction and conclusion of this saying fit perfectly 
together: "Do not swear at all. Let what you say be simply 'yes' 
or 'no ' . " 

4) Just because Matthew certifies that inadequate oaths employ 
equivalents of the divine name in the dt i clauses, it does not 
logically follow that he supplies an alternative oath without the 
divine name. His alternative could simply be to speak the truth. 
Anything more than a simple yes or no is not necessary since a 
disciple's words require no additional oath to assure their 

5) Mt . 23:16-22 is not asserting certain allowable oaths but is 
intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the casuistry of the 
scribes and Pharisees . 399 This is verified by the fact that Mt . 
23 is not an address to the disciples but a cutting polemic 
against the Jewish leaders. 

6) If Matthew is advocating simply telling the truth, then James 
and Matthew agree concerning the content of this saying of Jesus, 
thus giving us two witnesses to the same verbum Christ!. 

397p46^ 424*^, vg, Pelagius have the shorter reading in 
both verses, but Metzger , Textual Cqnynent ary , 576 is correct in 
explaining this as a scribal assimilation. 

^"^Cf. Alford PI urn me r, A Cr;iti,cal and Exegetical Com- 
mentary ori the Se cond Ep__ist_le of St . Paul to the Corinthians , 34. 

"^^Cf. Johannes Schneider, s.v. 6pyt5u, TDNT , V: 183. 


7) The early church interpreted Mt , 5:37 as a call to speaking 

the truth and not as a new oath formulation. By comparing the 

messages of Matthew and Plato (Theaet. 151d: "It is quite out of 

the question for me to agree to a lie or to suppress the 

truth."), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 5,99,1) demonstrates that 

he understood the gospel logion as a plea for truth-telling. In 

exegeting 2 Cor. 1:23 Didymus (MPG 39,1688) recites the dominical 

saying interpreting it as forbidding oaths: "One must not swear, 

but rather keep one's word above reproach, regarding his "yes' as 

actually yes and his -no' as actually being such." A similar 

conclusion is reached in the Apostolic Constitutions 5,12,6: 

Wherefore it is the duty of a man of God, as he is a 
Christian, not to swear by the sun or by the moon, or by the 
stars; nor by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any of the 
elements, whether small or great. For if our Master charged 
us not to swear by the true God, that our word .might be 
iAl33JE. t, an oath, nor by heaven itself, for that is a 
piece of heathen wickedness, nor by Jerusalem, nor by the 
sanctuary of God, nor the altar, nor a gift, nor the gilding 
of the altar, nor one's own head, for this custom is a piece 
of Judaic corruption, and on that account was forbidden, (my 
underlining) . 

Since the early church overwhelmingly quoted Matthew's saying 
with the equivalent wording from James, '^'-'^ the two expressions 
conveyed exactly the same meaning for them. 

8) In the Jewish tradition the call to truth-telling is also com- 
mon. The Jewish expert, Montefiore, comments: "I do not think 
that the ^tmbedingte Wahrhaf tigkeit im Reden' (unqualified truth- 
fulness in speech) which Jesus demanded was not also demanded, 
and was not also regarded as part of the moral ideal, by the 

^'-'^Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, 
Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa 
etc . 


Rabbis. "401 Examples in Rabbinic literature include Ruth Rabba 
7:6^02 aj;^^ Baba Mezia 493^03 Finally, there is compelling evi- 
dence that 2 Enoch 49:1 should not be utilized to support the 
Jewish oath formulation "yes, yes" since 1) this passage is miss- 
ing in the shorter recension; 2) the work shows Christian 
influence; 3) the MSS date only from the 16th and 17th centuries; 
and 4) the type of swearing which is commanded ("yes, yes" or 
"no, no") is explicitly stated not to be an oath.^^^ Therefore, 
based upon the close connection of Mt . 5:34a and 37 and the unan- 
imous witness of the early church, it seems best to understand 
Matthew as passing on Jesus' exhortation to speak the truth 
without relying upon an oath. 

One last exegetical problem should be examined before we 
specifically compare Jas. 5:12 with Mt , 5:33-37. It is disputed 
whether Matthew's genitive xou Tfounpov should be taken as mas- 
culine denoting the evil one or as neuter specifying that which 
is evil. If Matthew is concerned with speaking the truth, one 
might assume that the devil, the "father of lies" (Jn. 8:44), is 

'^^-'■Montef lore, Rabb_i_nic Literature and G_osp_e_l Teachings, 
50. He admits, however, 'that there is no rabbinic injunction 
never to swear an oath. 

402i.|:^a]3l3i Hunn said, 'The Yes of the righteous is Yes, 
and their No is No. '"in The Midrash Rabba : Ruth and Ecclesiastes , 
VIII: 85. 

403irj^g who punished the generations of the Flood and the 
Tower of Babel will also punish him who does not keep his word. 
Let your Yes and No be righteous. Do not speak with your mouth 
what you do not mean in your heart." Cf, Claude G. Montefiore 
and Herbert Loewe , A Rabbinic Antholxi^y., #1088. Epstein, 292 
offers an explanation rather than a literal translation. 

'*'^'*Cf. John P. Meier, Law and History; j,n Matthew' s 
GoSj9_el, 153-154, n. 68; Charlesworth , Pseudepigrapha and NT, 32. 
F.I. Andersen in OT Pseud., I: 176 believes that "dependence on 
Mt . 5:34f or Jas. 5:12 appears obvious, but not certain," 


in the mind of Matthew as at 13:19. Although the early church 
fathers understood both Mt . 5:37 and 6:13 as masculine , ^05 ^ 
change of climate has reversed scholarly opinion so that most 
modern interpreters choose for the neuter. ■*06 sii-jce in the 
closest reference (5:39) the devil "is ruled out by the fact that 
the Christian must resist the devil, "^'^'^ it is best to assvime 
that Mt. 5:37 is designating evil in general. 408 

There are sufficient differences between Matthew and 
James to cause hesitation in accepting the proposition that both 
cite the same saying of Jesus, Mt . 5:21-48 is structured by six 
antitheses while Jas , 5 contains loosely attached paraenesis 
about eschatology and the activities of the church, Mt , 5:33-37 
includes additional examples of oaths not found in James: swear- 
ing by Jerusalem and by one's own head. Moreover, the shared 
examples are used for divergent purposes. Whereas James intro- 
duces the oath formulas to elucidate the main prohibition not to 
swear, Matthew with the augmentation of the oxl clauses 
demonstrates in addition that to swear by heaven or earth or 
Jerusalem is to swear by God. Furthermore, Matthew calls atten- 
tion to the source of these oaths (i.e. evil) while James under- 
scores the end result of condemnation. Finally, grammatical dif- 

'^^^BAGD, s.v. TTovnpoQr 691.2b refers to Tertullian, 
Cyprian, Origen, Chrysostom, and the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, 

^^^Karl B. Bornhauser, Die Berg£redig;tj_ Viersuch einer 
zeitgenossischen Auslegung, 89; Giinther Harder, s.v. nouripoQ, 
lUEl' ~VI : 56 1; Klostermann, Ma tthaus- Evangel i en , 47; RSV; 
Schneider, s.v, 6}j.uv(o , TDNT, V: 181, n. 54; Schweizer, Matthew, 
128; Zahn, Matthaus, 245." 

40'^Harder, s.v, novripSc,, TDNT, VI: 561. 

^O^Also in Mt . 5:11; 6:13; 8:11; 9:4; 12:35; and perhaps 


ferences Include 1) James' choice of the present tense of the 
verb "to swear" (implying the prohibition of an existing prac-- 
tice) in contrast to the aorist tense utilized in Mt , 5:34; and 
2) James' classical accusative construction xov ovpai'OP' 
(originally indicating the god by whom the oath was sworn) rather 
than the Semitic usage tu plus the dative found in Mt , 5:34-36; 
23:16-22.409 g^j^-j- acknowledging these divergencies does not mini- 
mize our strong impression that James is alluding to a saying of 
Jesus. The subject matter is Identical: 1) two of the oath exam- 
ples are alike; 2) the positive instruction about speaking the 
truth is worded almost precisely the same; and 3) the conclusions 
are similar. The fact that Codex Sinaiticus adds Matthew's words 
6 AoyoQ to James' wording indicates that early scribes understood 
these passages together. Furthermore, modern authors over- 
whelmingly classify Jas , 5:12 as the most prominent example of a 
saying of Jesus alluded to by James. ^^^ All these facts add 
validity to the thesis that Jas, 5:12 and Mt . 5:34-37 transmit 
the identical logion of Jesus. To insure the truth of this 
belief, we will now investigate if another source with greater 
similarities can be discovered. 

Jesus is not unique in his antagonism against the misuses 

409gj;)p 149; Robertson, G^Eani!13£' 471; Moule, Idiom Book, 
183; Moulton and Howard, Grammar, II: 464, 

'^■'■'^All of the authors mentioned in Appendix II view Jas. 
5:12 as a possible parallel with Mt . 5:37 except for Credner who 
we must assume accidently omitted this reference. 


of the oath. The OT was already critical of promissory oaths'^H 
(also called vows) which were left unfulfilled. Thus in the law 
oath-taking was limited to those vows which the oath-taker was 
convinced he could fulfil (Num. 30:2; Dt . 23:21-23). Yet it was 
especially the prophets who admonished against using oaths too 
lightly (Jer. 5:2; 7:9; Hos. 4:2; Zech, 5:3-4; Mai. 3:5). Their 
special concern was swearing by other gods which was classified 
as idolatry (Jer. 5:7; 12:16; Amos 8:4; Hos. 4:15; Zeph, 1:5). 
As time passed, more and more objections were raised against 
oath-taking: 1) it was recognized that resorting to oaths 
revealed a low standard of truthfulness; 2) the third commandment 
could be safeguarded if oaths were disapproved of; 3) a compli- 
cated casuistic use of oaths became a means whereby the unwary 
could be cheated rather than a means of guaranteeing that a prom- 
ise would be kept; and 4) as contact with foreign nations became 
more frequent, the temptation to adopt pagan oath formulas 
increased . ^1 2 sir. 23:11 is typical of Jev,rish examples in its 
rebuke : 

So the man who constantly swears (rroAuopKOQ ) and utters the 

Name cannot be absolved from sin. A man who swears a great 

deal will be filled with iniquity, and the scourge will never 
leave his house. 

411i'vjo categories of oaths can be distinguished (cf. 
Danby, Mi s hnah , 411) . There are assertive oaths where one 
states, "I swear that I have/have not done something" and promis- 
sory oaths whereby one asserts, "I swear that I will/will not do 
something" (cf Guelich, Sermon, 213). An example of the former 
is Mt . 5:33a, "You shall not swear falsely," whereas Mt . 5:33b 
embodies a promissory oath, "You shall perform to the Lord what 
you have sworn," 

^^2cf. Laws, James, 221. 


From these parallels Spitta^lS hypothesizes a Jewish source on 
which both Matthew and James are dependent. Yet a total prohibi- 
tion of oaths did not prevail in Judaism, probably because the OT 
contained frequent oaths. ^^^ Even Montefiore, who argues for 
close similarities between the teaching of Jesus and the Rabbis 
on this subject, admits that "there is no Rabbinical ordinance or 
injunction never to ^swear' or to take an oath. "415 

In the Greek world there were warnings against any and 
all oaths as early as Choerilus Epicus (Stobaeus 3,27,1) in the 
fifth century BC , Pythagoras and his followers were the most 
well-known for their stand on the prohibition of oaths. ^^^ As 
Hellenistic Judaism allowed Greek culture to shape its thought 
patterns, an increased opposition to oaths is encountered in 
Jewish circles. Philo (.Dec, 84-85) advocates avoiding oaths 
wherever possible. - 

To swear not at all is the best course and most profitable to 
life, well suited to a rational nature which has been taught 
to speak the truth so well on each occasion that its words 
are regarded as oaths; to swear truly is only, as people say, 
a "second-best voyage" , for the mere fact of his swearing 
casts suspicion on the trustworthiness of the man. Let him, 
then, lay and linger in the hope that by repeated postpone- 
ment he may avoid the oath altogether. But if necessity be 
too strong for him, he must consider in no careless fashion 
all that an oath involves, for that is no small thing, though 
custom makes light of it.'^^'^ 

413spitta, Zur Geschichte, II: 178. 

'*^*Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, Jame s , 221. 

415jy[Qntef lore, E§^kllli£ Literature and Gospel Teachings, 


'^l^Cf. Schneider, s.v. onvvu , TDNT, V: 179 and Dibelius 
and Greeven, James, 248, n. 41 for references and a discussion 
over whether the Stoics joined the Pythagoreans in their refusal 
of oaths. 

4^'^J. Heinemann, "Philo 's Lehre vom Bid," Judaica, 110 
contends that he draws upon Stoic sources. Cf, Schneider, s.v. 
6p.vvu, TDNT, V: 179, n. 31, 


However, when faced with the problem of how to avoid the name of 
God, Philo (Spec . Leg. 2:5) suggests various types of alternative 
oath formulations: "But also a person may add to his "Yes' or 
"^No' if he wish, not indeed the highest and most venerable and 
primal cause, but earth, sun, stars, heaven, the whole universe." 
Thus Philo believes that humans must have recourse to oaths in 
accord with their own unreliability, whereas the words of God are 
as certain as oaths (Sac . Abel . 93). 

The Essenes also offer disparate evidence over the 
prohibition of oaths. On the one hand, they demand a solemn oath 
when initiated into full membership in the ascetic community, ^^^ 
yet all other oaths seem to have been forbidden, ^^^ Mitton claims 
that this contrary evidence leads to three possible conclusions: 
1 ) the statement of Josephus that Essenes required an entrance 
oath is inaccurate; 2) the people of Qumran were not orthodox 
Essenes; or 3) the Zadokite Document does not represent the Qum- 
ran community , "^20 jj^ ^^^^ opinion none of the above conclusions 
are true. Is it not more likely that these two types of oaths 
were completely unassociated in the minds of the Essenes? The 
entrance oath was intricately connected with their community 
covenant and was viewed as a covenant promise rather than an 
oath. Therefore the prohibition of oaths and the establishment 
of an entrance promise were in their minds not contradictory. 

^l^CD 9:9-10; 15:1-10; 16:8-9; IQS 2:1-18; 5:8-11. Of, 
Jos, Bell, 2:139,142, 

"^l^Cf. Jos., Bell, 2:135; Ant, 15:371; Philo, Oinn, Prob. 
klk- 84, Josephus believed they were following Pythagoras, 

420iyiitton, James, 194, n. 2. 


Thus we encounter in Hellenistic and ascetic Jewish lit- 
erature parallels to both the demand for honesty and the refuta- 
tion of oaths as found in Mt . 5:33-37 and Jas . 5:12. Further- 
more, as Guelich notes, "Each of the oaths in 5:34-36 has a 
counterpart in Jewish literature and each is explicitly rejected 
as a binding oath."'*-21 Therefore Jesus' teaching fits generally 
into his cultural milieu. However, his radical hard-line 
approach was not the commonly accepted practice of Judaism. 
Because all people would have to render account for every care- 
less word at the end of the age (Mt. 12:36), *22 jesus advocated a 
radical truthfulness without the crutch of an oath.423 Because 
James and Matthew (5:34,37) display this same attitude, Jas. 5:12 
is based upon Jesus' teaching and not upon that of the Essenes or 
Hellenistic Judaism. 

■* 21 Guelich, Sermon,, 215. 

Shebuoth 4:13 "[If a man said] ■"! adjure you,' or "I 
command you, ' or "^ I bind you, ' they are liable. [But if he said] 
^By heaven and by earth,' they are exempt." (of, Mt . 5:34b-35a). 

Nedarim 1:3 "[If he said, ~May it be to me] as the lamb 
[or] as Jerusalem' ... it is a vow as binding as if he had 
uttered the word Korban. R. Judah says: If he said, "[May it be] 
Jerusalem,' he has said naught." (of. Mt . 5:35b). 

Sanhedrin 3:2 "If a man must take an oath before his 
fellow, and his fellow said to him, 'Vow to me by the life of thy 
head,' R. Meir says: He may retract. But the sages say: He can- 
not retract." (cf. Mt . 5:36). 

'*22-];■]^■^g this exhortation is in harmony with the other 
ethical radicalisms of Jesus which are based on the announcement 
of the coming of God's reign. Cf. Georg Strecker, The Sermon on 
the Mount, 78. 

~~~^23gQj^g^ j^j^gg 3 tension is seen between Jesus' own conduct 
and his prohibition of oaths. Spitta, Zur Geschlchte, II: 179 
claims that Jesus' conduct in Mt, 26:63f proves that Mt . 5:34-37 
cannot be assigned to Jesus. Arguing against this, Schneider, 
s.v. 6]xvvQ , TDNT, V: 184-185 comments, "But the a\ir]u is not an 
oath. Nor does Jesus make a declaration of an oath in Mt . 26:64; 
this is a simple statement which . . . contains an open Messianic 
confession on the part of Jesus," 


Dibelius, however, raises the possibility that both Jas, 

5:12 and Mt . 5:33-37 originated in the teaching of Judaeo- 

Christian paraenesis. He cites three facts: 

1) Jas does not quote the saying as a dominical saying; 2) it 
occurs in the Gospels only in Matthew, and it is precisely in 
Matthew that legal prescriptions of a Jewish origin occasion- 
ally appear as dominical sayings; 3) there are Jewish paral- 
lels to this saying. 424 

The fact that honesty of speech was a popular theme in the 

church's ethical teaching'*25 could be added as a fourth piece of 

evidence. Yet after offering grounds for this thesis, Dibelius 

immediately decides that these arguments are inconsequential. He 

points out, 

Because of their very nature, the last two naturally prove 
nothing. Regarding the first argument, the absence of a 
quotation formula in Jas does not qualify as evidence that 
the saying about swearing was not regarded as a dominical 
saying in the time of Jas. Other sayings of Jesus whose 
provenance is more assured are also used in paraenetic texts 
without special introductory identification. '^26 

Furthermore, the fourth argument would only be valid if no 

specific verbal parallel was reported to have been spoken by 

Jesus, The reason for similar teaching in the church's ethical 

tradition traces back to the fact that ecclesiastical paraenesis 

employs as one of its sources the sayings of the Jesus-tradition. 

Thus it can be affirmed with confidence that Jas. 5:12 and Mt . 

5:34,37 trace back to a common source -- the teaching of Jesus. 

Our final project is to discern if the prohibition of 

oaths in Jas. 5:12 and Mt . 5:33-37 have undergone development in 

4 2 4j3j;]3g2ius and Greeven, James, 251. Cf . also Georg 
Strecker, "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt. 5:21-48 par)," ZNW 
69( 1978) : 63. 

425Qf_ Minear, "Yes and No," 8-10 for examples. 

'^26]3j^]3g2ius and Greeven, James, 251, 


the history of transmission. To accomplish this task we will 
attempt to recover the original wording of the saying of Jesus 
which is admittedly an effort with tentative conclusions. 
Guelich'^27 points out that both the Matthean premise (5:33) and 
the fourth antithesis (Mt. 5:34-37) consist of multiple elements. 
Mt . 5:33a is an assertive oath'^28 cjealing with honesty drawn from 
Lev. 19:12, while 5:33b is a promissory oath pertaining to faith- 
fulness to one's word taken from Ps. 50(49) :14. Guellch contends 
that Mt. 5 :34a, 37a corresponds to the assertive oath of 5:33a 
while Mt . 5:34b~3 6 offers several illustrations of promissory 
oaths as in the second half of the premise (5:33b). Although 
Guellch is correct about which elements in the text correspond, 
he is Incorrect in assigning the reason for this to the dif- 
ference between assertive and promissory oaths. The purpose of 
the ox L clauses in Mt , 5:34b-36 is to demonstrate that certain 
oath formulas do no_t avoid God's name; therefore, these verses 
are not promissory oaths at all. Instead one must recognize that 
two divergent themes are intertwined in the Matthean passage, one 
advocating truth-telling instead of oaths (Mt. 5 :34a, 37a) and the 
other protesting the use of seemingly innocent oaths such as 
those mentioning heaven, earth, or Jerusalem which in reality 
misuse the name of God (5:34b-36) as in Lev, 19:12 (5:33a). 

If this explanation is accepted, many of the additions in 
Matthew are explained, and Jas. 5:12 and Mt , 5 :34a, 37a correspond 

^^^Guelich, Sermon, 248-250,211-219. 

^^^Lohmeyer, MSiiilliis » 132 and Klostermann, Matthaus- 
Evangelium, 46 wrongly contend that the first citation should be 
restricted to vows since the second citation surely refers to 
vows . 


almost identically. The three bzi clauses in Mt , 5 : 34b--35 were 
interposed to prove from the OT that God was being designated by 
these seemingly harmless oaths. Mt . 5:36 was then appended 
because of its parallel structure (swearing by something follovNred 
by a 6x1 clause). What remains are the three examples of oaths; 
neither by heaven, earth, nor Jerusalem, Guelich rejects this 
three-fold oath as original since James diverges in his grammati- 
cal construction and each of these oaths has counterparts within 
Jewish literature . '^29 y^^ ^^g remain unconvinced that the parallel 
use of the oaths "by heaven and earth" in both Matthew and James 
is only a coincidence. It is more likely that we encounter here 
two independent witnesses to a common tradition. Although the 
third oath in each case differs, Matthew and James share the com- 
mon purpose of including every possible situation where an oath 
might be used, James generalizes ("or with every other oath") 
while Matthew calls attention to two additional common Jewish 
oaths (by Jerusalem and by the hair upon one's head) . In other 
passages in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus repeatedly employs two 
elements in his teaching: salt of the earth and light of the 
world (.5:13-14); treasures upon earth vs. treasures in heaven 
(6:19-20); sound eye vs. evil eye (6:22-23); God vs , mammon 
(6:24); two gates (7:13-14); two trees (7:17-18); two types of 
lives (7:21); and two houses ( 7 : 24-27 ) . '*30 Likewise we should 
assume a two-fold oath formulation, "either by heaven or by 

■*29Guelich, Sermon, 214-215. 

^'^'^Jeremias , NT Theology, 14-20 (esp. the lists on pp. 
15-16) has documented Jesus' preference for uttering two examples 
set in antithetic parallelism. 


earth" in the original wording of Jesus' saying. 

It is more difficult to determine the originality of the 

final clause in the oath prohibition since the wording of Mt . 

5:37b and Jas , 5:12d is so divergent. However, Guelich argues 

convincingly that the gospel conclusion contains essentially Mat- 

thean terms : 

More than (Treptaaov) appears again in 5:47 in contrast to 
Luke 6:33. The evJ.2 one (xoO TrourTpov) appears five other 
times in Matthew (5:39; 6:13, cf . Luke 11:4; 13:19, cf, Mark 
4:15; 13:38; 5:44, with the plural) all in either the Sermon 
or the Parable Discourse . '^^^ 

Therefore, Mt . 5:37b should be categorized as Matthean redaction. 
The eschatological threat in Jas, 5:12d, "that you may not fall 
under condemnation," is likewise more in accord with the well- 
recognized eschatological message of Jesus. The fact that the 
judgment is a favorite theme of James (2:4,12; 4:11-12; 5:9) 
might cause one to identify 5:12d as Jamesian redaction, yet an 
overruling piece of evidence is the resultant parallelism of 
structure when this clause is included in the original version. 

Do not swear at all (negative prohibition) 

neither by heaven nor by earth (explanation) 

but let your yes be yes and your no no (positive affirmation) 

that you may not fall under judgment. ( explanation) '*32 

The most detailed attempts to reconstruct the Traditions- 

geschichte des Schwurverbots have been undertaken by Minear and 

Strecker. For Minear the nucleus of the saying is Mt . 5 :34a, 37, 

'*~^-'- Guelich, Sermon, 218. 

432■pJ-^g differences in the Greek text in the third line 
above are a result of Matthew's more Semitic construction, 
Allen, Matthew, 54 calls James' version a "graecising of the 
original". As we shall see, the church fathers preferred the 
more Greek phraseology found in James when they transmitted the 
gospel saying found in Matthew. 


"an oral tradition, highly memorable and widely current. "433 
Stage I of the redaction would then be the addition of vv. 34b-35 
giving three examples of oaths which illustrate the negative half 
of the original command. Stage II was the introduction of a 
fourth clause (5:36) Illustrating both a different kind of oath 
and another reason for not swearing. Stage III resulted in the 
addition of 5:33 and the simultaneous fusing with the prohibi- 
tions of anger and lust.'*-^'* Finally, stage IV of the redaction 
added the other three antitheses to establish an ethic for the 
church over against the synogogue . Minear defends Justin 
Martyr's account (1 Apol, 16:5) as nearest to the nucleus, ^35 
while Jas . 5:12 is located at stage 1.436 r^^ia evangelist Matthew 
comes upon the scene at stage IV and combines the antitheses 
together into their present format. '^S'^ 

Strecker's reconstruct ion'*^^ is noticeably incongruent 
with the explanation of Minear. He perceives a flow of tradi- 

^^^Minear, "Yes and No," 3. 

'^'^^Thus a trilogy of antitheses which Minear believes 
belongs to Matthew's source M. 

^^^E.P. Sanders, The Tendency of_ the Synoptic Tx,a dJ.jti_on , 
57,67 believes that Justin used Matthew but intentionally omitted 
his examples of forbidden oaths since he "was interested only in 
the principle". Minear, "Yes and No," 1 unconvinced, states, "It 
is as credible that these illustrations should have been added 
during the development of oral tradition as that they should have 
been intentionally deleted during one of the redactional stages. 
Certainly, if one starts with the Justin version as the nucleus, 
he can readily explain the accretions." Because of the common 
use of two of these examples by Matthew and James, we agree more 
with Sanders, 

"^^^Minear, "Yes and No," 7. 

"^^^Strecker , "Antithesen der Berpredigt , " 56f,69. Cf . 
also Gerhard Dautzenberg, "1st das Schwurverbot Mt . 5, 33-37; 
Jak. 5, 12 ein Belspiel ftir die Torakritik Jesu?" BZ 25(1981): 


tions commencing with the criticism of an OT law and concluding 
with the formation of a new ecclesiastical law. The saying began 
as an antithetical oath prohibition (Mt. 5:33-34a) to which was 
attached like building blocks the following verses in the precise 
order they appear in Matthew. Thus step two is the addition of 
5:34-35 without the grounds (oxt clauses) by the Hellenistic 
Jewish-Christian community. In stage three the Hellenistic 
Gentile Christian community attaches the additional oath formula 
in 5:36 and develops the saying into an ecclesiastical ordinance 
by adjoining Mt . 5:37a. Finally, before Matthew annexes the 6x i 
clauses and places the saying within his gospel, 5:37b is 
appended making the redaction complete. 

Our reconstruction differs from both of the above, but 
lies nearer to the history of traditions proposed by Mlnear. We 
believe that Jas , 5:12 without the additional comprehensive oath 
formula "or with any other oath" and his unique introduction "But 
above all, brethren" reiterates the saying of Jesus. The placing 
of this saying into the antithesis format with the other five 
antitheses of Mt . 5:21-48 should probably be assigned to Mat- 
thew's unique source M, assembled by the Jewish-Christian com- 
munity to counter the claims of the synogogue . 4^9 Matthew then 

439rp2-^g history of attempts to discover whether Matthew's 
antitheses are original is intricate and full of controversy (cf. 
the commentaries) . The fact that each antithesis has a parallel 
without the antithesis form speaks against tracing the origin 
back to Jesus: first and second antitheses, Mt , 5:21~30=Did. 3:2- 
3; third, Mt . 5:31-32=Lk. 16:18; fourth, Mt . 5:33-37=Jas. 5:12; 
fifth, Mt. 5:38-42=Lk. 6:27-31; sixth, Mt . 5:43-48=Lk. 6:32-36, 
On the other hand, since Jesus is often involved in polemical 
battles in other gospel material, it is plausible that this 
saying was once uttered with a polemical thrust (Laws, James, 
223) in a specific situation which is now impossible to recover. 


inserted into this antithesis vv, 34b-36 (except of course the 

phrases "either by heaven or by earth"). The 6xl clauses were 

written to parallel the familiar logion of 5:36 and to reveal 

that these oaths used a designation equal to the name of God as 

prohibited in the reference to Lev. 19:12 in Mt . 5:33. Thus a 

triad of formulas each with a refutation backed by scripture 

(34b-35) came into being alongside 5:36 which Matthew adopted 

from the tradition. Finally, Matthew reformulated the conclusion 

■(5:37b) utilizing characteristic Matthean terminologY. Thus in 

Matthew we encounter a combination of traditions whereas in Jas . 

5:12 the saying of Jesus retains its original emphatic purity. 

The stages of development could be categorized as follows: 

Stage I: The logion of Jesus roughly parallel to Jas, 5:12. 

Stage II: M, The Jewish-Christian community places this saying 
into the antithesis format. 

Stage III: To avoid the misuse of the name of God as in 5:33b, 

Matthew adds the 6xl clauses according to the pattern 
of 5:36 which he also attaches. Then he replaces the 
eschatological conclusion with his own peculiar termi- 
nology in 5:37b. 

Although James preserves more of the original character 
of the saying than Matthew, '*'*'-' a surprisingly standard combina- 
tion of these two versions occurs in the early transmission of 
this saying. 

^'^^Dibellus and Greeven, James, 251 characterize James' 
version as "the simpler, more unified, and ethically purer form." 
Cf. also Braun, Ra dikalismus , II: 80-81; Holtzmann, Sy noptike r , 
110; Klostermann, Matthaus-Evangel ium , 47; Laws, James, 223; Loh- 
meyer , Matthaus, 131, n. 4; Shepherd, "James and Jesus," 47; Tor- 
^^Y' Four Gospels , 291. Others argue that Jas. 5:12 is based 
upon Matthew: Gryglewicz, "Jacques et Matthieu," 50-51; McNeile, 
Matthew, 67-68; Schlatter, Jakobus, 2 78; Schniewind, Matthaus, 


Just 1 Apol.l6:5 Mt . 5:34-35,37 Jas , 5:12 

\ i / W , \ 3 / 

&yh) 6e Aeyw up, ly rrpo Traj^rwj^ <5e, ... 

JJQ QUoanze^ ,2A^' yn, SMoo''^^ ,9 A^S " till SM^'J^,!^ 

|jr;xe et' xy oupavu, nnxe xov ovpavov 

az L Bpovoc, early zov 
^ eeov r/^^P-rfxe ev xrj yrj, p.i)xe xr}v yrip 

6x1 unoTra6 Lov eaxif 

x2y TToSdv avxov , 

pj'ixe et-Q ' lepoCToAujLia, pj^xc aXXou xiva opKov • 

6x1 TToAiQ ecTxly xou 
■^'-' peyofAou paacAeuQ . . . 

-?i?JLy. ^^. ilEMM. IsiM ,^,£ ° AoyoQ v^iiov nxw de u|iWii 

x6 va_l val , val uaL, x6 ua_l ual 

.M^-i. Si? ,2.y. OM ' oiJ o'-' ■ ^SJz. L9, ££ £.y.' 

iyH ^ii? t.o£ ZL9iiQ£5Jy. • kSi ,I.o5 ZI2i:I.!l£2M ■ so"c ■- ^ • KpLcrty rreanxe . 
Although Justin is purposely quoting a logion of the Lord (ouxuc. 
■napeKe\e6cjaxo where Christ is the subject), the second p>erson 
plural verb in line 2 and the article in line 12 are obviously 
closer to James than to Matthew. However, this does not entail 
that Justin is here dependent upon the Epistle of James since 
elements in lines 3, 11, and 14-15 are paralleled in Matthew 
rather than James. Therefore 1 Apol. 16:5 is a harmonization of 
Mt . 5:34,37 and Jas. 5:12.^*^ Since there are no other indica- 
tions in the writings of Justin Martyr that he utilized the 
Epistle of James as source material, it is best to assume that 
there is a common, probably oral, paraenetic tradition underlying 
both James and Justin. Evidence from other Greek Fathers indi- 
cates that this harmonization, which possibly goes directly back 
to Justin, grew and became widespead in the church. 

1) Clem. Alex., Strom. 5,99,1 and 7,67,5 eaxui v\ih)v x6 vai yal izai 
ou ov . 

**^Cf. Bellinzoni, Sayings of Jesus i,n Justin, 65-66; 
Schneider, s.v. 6p.yu(j, TDNT, V: 182, n. 60; Dibelius and Greeven, 
James, 250, n. 52. 


2) Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 19,6,21 koI rraAcv eu t$ 
evayyeAiio Keyovxoc,' p,ri oiivvuat iifixe xov ovpavov iir]ze zriv yiju 
Unxe exepou xLua opKOv , crAA' nxu vp.du x6 ual val kol to ov ov . 
TO Trepiacjoxepou yap xouxup' £K xou jroynpou UTiapxe t • 

3) Eusebius, Demonstratlo Evangel lea 3,3,103 ecrxu yap up.5y to ual 
vai , TO ov ov . 

4) Eusebius, Comm_ent_arY ,on Psalms 14:4 e$ ' S fiepaaouuxai to i-'al 
J^al Kal TO oi) ou . 

5) Pseudo-Clementine HomiJ[i_es 19,2,4 eaxu u/awy to val ual Kal to 
ov ov , x6 6e TTCpLCjaov toutuv ck xov noviTpov eaxiv. 

6) Pseudo-Clementine Homilie s 3,55,1 eaxu vp.wu xo vol vai, xo ov 
ov • xo yap nepLaaov xovxuu sk xov novripov eaxip. 

7) Cyril of Alex., De Adoratione et Veritate VI: 212 eaxw vjiuu xo 
pal ual Kal xo ov ov • to 6e TrepLaa-bu toutw^ ck xov SiapoAov 
tax LP . 

8) Gregory of Nyssa, In C_anti£le of Canticles, Homily XIII eaxu 
6e vp.uv 6 AoyoQ xo ual ual Kal xo ov ov • xo Se nepiaaoxepou 
TOUTCjy £i< Tou 6 lapoAov eaxiu. 

9) £oB„§,tiili,t,lj2.nes A|)_ostol_oruj5 5,12,6 eZuai 6e xo ual ual Kal to 
ou ou ... Kal TO xovxtou nepiacTou xov Trovripou eluai. 

10) Joannas Chrysostorai , Ho_ffii__li.a.e in Matthaeum XVII: 2 29 eaxu 3e xo ual ual Kal xo ou ov • xo Se Trepicra-ov xovxuu Ik tou 
nourtpov eax l . 

These references indicate that when the Greek Fathers quoted the 
Lord's saying, they interpreted the ual ual, ov ov of Matthew to 
mean xo ual ual Kal xo ov ov . The harmonization of the Matthean 
and Jamesian versions demonstrates that the Church Fathers traced 
both back to a saying of Jesus. However, as Laws states, "This 
amount of difference between the two in so brief a passage makes 
a literary dependence of either on the other unlikely, and it is 
probable that they therefore represent independent crystallisa- 
tions [sjcj into literary form of the same oral tradition. "^■*2 

^^^Lavis, James, 2 23. Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James, 


We will discuss the relationship between the Epistle of James and 
the Gospel of Matthew in more detail in the following chapter. 
For now it is sufficient to report that in this case James and 
Matthew are two distinct witnesses to the same verbum Christi. 
James transmits "a shorter, more classical form and Matthew a 
longer, more Semitic one."'^^^ With this comparison of Jas . 5:12 
and Mt . 5:33-37 we terminate our discussion of the twenty most 
significant parallels between the Epistle of James and the Synop- 
tic tradition. 

'^'^■^Davids , James, 190, We disagree with David's next 
statement that priority cannot be established. 


Chapter 4 

Many scholars regularly call attention to the relation- 
ship between the Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew.-'- The 
prominence of parallels with Matthew 5-7 has even resulted in the 
Epistle of James being entitled "the Sermon on the Mount among 
the NT epistles".-^ Although one can validly claini that James 
predominantly employs Jesus-material from the Sermon on the 
Mount /Plain , -3 the parallels with Luke stand as visibly prominent 
as those of Matthew. We have discerned about an equal number of 
allusions to the particular material in Luke as to the unique 
sayings in Matthew, ^ Therefore, James does not draw exclusively 
from any particular strand of the gospel writings. In this chap- 
ter we will review the exegetical evidence indicating a depend- 
ence upon the teaching of Matthew and counter these claims with 
data which point to an independent transmission of the sayings of 

-'Adamson, James, 21; Briickner , "Kritik Jakobusbrief es , " 
53 7; Henry W. Fulford, "James," ,A_„Dj^ct_io_narY,_j3f^^^ 
Gos_pe_ls , 847; Kistemaker, Gospels in Current Study, 92; Robinson, 
Redating, 125; Schmid, Bi_bl_is_ch^ Xk§o^^^^^^ II: 364; Rudolph V.G, 
f asker , The Old Testam.ent" in the New Testament , 124,132; Wil- 
1 i ams , Jpjm_and_ J_ame_s , 8 5-86. 

^Cf. Christian C. Bunsen, Vollsta nd iges Bib^J^werk fur die 
GsSlsAQii? ' VIII: 58 8; Marcus Dods , An inJ_r_odu_ct_ign to the New 
T.§-Si_§„5L?ilt -■ 191. 

■'According to our findings all of James' deliberate allu- 
sions to logia of Jesus correspond to passages in the Sermon on 
the Mount/Plain except for Jas , 4:10 which alludes to the 
generalizing conclusion, "whoever humbles himself will be 
exalted," found in various contexts in the gospels (Mt. 23:12; 
Lk. 14:11; 18: 14b). Davids, "James and Jesus," 78, n. 16 says, 
"Twenty-nine out of 45 parallels come from the Sermon tradition. 

*Cf. afee^w^e-r— p_«-_La4.-#H^. 


Jesus. We will first discuss the conclusions of Shepherd and 
Gryglewicz who have most vigorously contended for a Matthean 
source and then investigate the similar teachings of James and 
Matthew topically. 

1.1 Shepherd maintains that each of James' eight discourses 
is build around material from the Jesus-tradition in Matthew.^ 
Since these parallels are located in both the M and Q traditions 
of Matthew, Shepherd argues that the finished gospel rather than 
a preMatthean source is employed by James. Since the letters of 
Ignatius of Antioch, the Didache, and the Epistle of James all 
"use the Gospel freely, and use it as an authoritative guide in a 
way that they use no other Gospel known to us,"^ Shepherd con- 
tends that all these documents originated in the same geographi- 
cal area, namely Syria. To explain the inexact rendering of Mat- 
thew's wording, Shepherd asserts that James had only heard the 
Gospel of Matthew read in worship services and did not have the 
manuscript at his disposal as he wrote the epistle. 
1.2 Our results indicate that James did not structure each 
section of his epistle around a macarism or gnomic saying drawn 
from the Gospel of Matthew. In Shepherd's list of central 
sayings only Jas . 2:5 is a legitimate allusion to the gospels, 
and this verse is closer to Luke's gospel than to Matthew's.'^ It 

^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 42. Cf. above, ch. 3, 
section 4.1. 

^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 49. Shepherd (42-43) 
does admit two areas of convergence with Luke: 1) the length of 
the draught at the time of Elijah (three and a half years); and 
2) James' closer reflection of the Lucan beatitude about the rich 
and the use of the Lucan woe upon those who laugh. 

■^Shepherd's central gnomic sayings are Jas. 1:12,25; 2:5 
or 2:10; 2:20 or 2:26; 3:2; 4:4,17; 5:11. 


is not true as Shepherd contends that 1) the section 1:2-18 is a 
comiBentary upon the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Lead us not 
into temptation" or the Q saying on prayer, "Ask and it shall be 
given unto you" (p. 44); or 2) that underneath the whole section 
of 1:19-27 stands the gospel parable found in two Q sayings of 
Jesus: Mt. 7:21; Lk . 6:46 and Mt . 7:24; Lk, 6:49 (p. 45); or 3) 
that the discourse of James on the tongue (3:1-12) is a homiletic 
illustration of Mt . 12:36 (p. 46), Nor does each section in 
James contain material from the Gospel of Matthew in the context 
surrounding the central saying as Shepherd insists. The section 
denouncing the worldly merchants (4:13-17) contains no discern- 
ible Jesus-saying, and Shepherd does not even claim that his cen- 
tral macarism (4:17) is Jesus-material, The background of Jas . 
2:14--26 is a theological discussion on faith and works in the 
early church rather than a dominical saying. The metaphor of the 
fig tree yielding olives in 3:12 is nature Imagery from the 
Mediterranean world rather than from Jesus' saying in Lk. 6:44,/' 
Mt , 7:16, and Jas. 3:18 is better identified as a Jewish proverb 
than a dominical saying. Furthermore, the two important paral- 
lels concerning those who weep (4:9) and the rich (6:1) are spe- 
cifically located in a section unique to Luke's gospel, the woes 
of Lk . 6:24-26. Although Shepherd attempts to prove that Mat- 
thean parallels "relate to every single section of the Epistle, 
and to almost every major theme, "^ allusions to the sayings of 
Jesus are in reality sprinkled randomly throughout the epistle. 
To be sure, Jesus' sayings are important to the epistle, but they 

^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 47 


do not possess the controlling function that Shepherd assigns to 
them. Instead they are always situated in the background, wedded 
to ecclesiastical teaching material or combined with traditional 
Jewish wisdom. They are never utilized to provide an author- 
itative sou.rce to ground James' teaching as with the OT quota- 
tions. In most cases James does not allude to specific sayings 
of Jesvxs but instead transmits the paraenetic teaching of the 
church which had incorporated certain emphases from Jesus' 
preaching into its content. 

Shepherd's conclusions supporting a geographical tie 
between. James, Matthew, the Didache, and Ignatius' epistles are 
also misleading. Shepherd follows in the footsteps of Streeter 
who championed the hypothesis that both Ignatius and the Didache 
utilized Matthew as their gospel. 9 Recently Glover has raised 
weighty objections to the supposed connection between the Didache 
and Matthew by demonstrating that the Didachist frequently sup- 
ports Lucan readings or the text of Justin Martyr in addition to 
the Matthean tradition. 1° After investigating 26 possible allu- 
sions to the Gospel of Matthew, Glover concludes that "the 
material shared by the Didache and Matthew reached their authors 
through different channels." Therefore, "it seems necessary to 
sever the link that is supposed to bind the Didache and Matthew 
to the same place of origin, namely Syria. "H Glover's denial of 
literary dependence upon Matthew is substantiated by a growing 

^Burnett H. Streeter, X^..J'.93,L.3.°3£^.l^.±.„A--^Xyf:§-Y.^9-t 
Or, _i gi n s , 505-511. 

-'■'-'Richard Glover, "The Didache's Quotations and the 
Synoptic Gospels," NTS 5(1958-1959): 12. 
^^Ibid. , 29,27. 

majority of scholars . -'■'^ However, the common employment of proto- 
Matthean material by Ignatius^^ ^j^fj t-i^Q Diciache does in our 
opinion point to a similar geographical provenance. The Epistle 
of James, however, demonstrates closer ties with other v^?ritings 
of the Apostolic Fathers, specifically 1 Clement and the Shepherd 
of Hermas,^'^ than with the Didache and the epistles of Ignatius, 
Therefore, it is doubtful that the Epistle of James originated in 
a geographical region where Matthew's gospel was the sole author- 
ity. The hypothetical nature of Shepherd's thesis is obvious 
when one realizes that others like von Soden and more hesitantly 
Feine^S have opted for the opposite thesis that the origin and 
geographical location of James and Luke's special source L belong 
together. Although many authors have paraded forth the parallels 
between James and Matthew, others^^ have championed the ties with 
Luke's gospel. In fact, Streeter himself in another of his writ- 
ings distances James from Matthew: "The verbal reminiscenses in 
James of sayings of Christ are also on the whole nearer to Luke 
than Matthew,"!'^ This fact indicates that a direct use of Mat- 

■^^Jean P. Audet, La Didache. Instructions des Apotres, 

198; John S. Kloppenborg, "Didache 16:6-8 and Special Matthaean 
Tradition," ZNW 70(1978): 67; Helmut Kdster, SYrKDptJ.^che 
tJberlief erung bei den A postolisch en Vatern , 239ff; Bent "ley 
Layton, "The Sources, Date, and Transmission of Didache," HTR 
61(1968) : 345, 

^■^Cf. Richard Bauckham, "The Study of Gospel Traditions 
Outside the Canonical Gospels: Problems and Prospects," GosjgeJ. 
Perspectives 5: 386-387; Joost Smit Sibinga, "Ignatius and Mat- 
thev;, " NovT 8(1966): 281; Hagner , "Sayings of Jesus in Apostolic 
Fathers," 239-240; Koster, Synoj^tJ,sche_ul3ej^^ 61 contends 
that Ignatius is closer to Matthew because Matthew transmits the 
ethical tradition of the church. 

^'^Cf. Appendix II, sections 7.0 and 8.0. 

^"-"Hermann von Soden, "Der Jakobusbrief , " JrP rTh 10(1884): 
171; Feine, Jakobus^brie f , 7 6-77. 

■'•^Feine, Moffatt, Nosgen , Schenkel, von Soden. 

•'•'^Streeter, Primitive Chruch, 193. 


thew's gospel by James as well as a geographical relationship of 
origin are unsatisfactory hypotheses, 

2.0 Shepherd's thesis is stated in even starker terms by 
Gryglewicz who argues for a literary dependence upon the vjritten 
Gospel of Matthew and not just upon an oral reading in worship 
services. He detects clues for this conclusion in James' repeti- 
tion of certain characteristic expressions found only in Matthew 
and in the inexact manner in which certain words fit into James' 
context , ^^ 

2.1 With regard to verbal expressions Gryglewicz lists the 
following similarities:^^ 

1) KOCTfioQ used in a pejorative sense ( Jas . 1:27,- 4:4; Mt . 18:7), 

2) j/EKpoQ employed allegorically (Jas. 2;26,- Mt . 8:22). 

3) eKKhno'ia referring to the church (Jas, 5:14; Mt . 16:18). 

4) The expression <5 laAoy louo l Trouiipoi (Jas. 2:4; Mt . 15:19) 
rather than, oi dLaAoyia^ot ol KaKol employed in Mk. 7:21. 

5) The only two commandments of the Decalogue which occur in the 
Sermon on the Mount are mentioned by James (Jas. 2:11; Mt . 

5: 21-30) . 

6) James' expression el t: iq ooKeL (1:26) is without a doubt 
borrowed from the text of Matthew since the word SoKelp 
appears there frequently (Mt. lOx; Mk . Ix; Lk.-Acts 6x; Paul 
lOx; Jas . Ix) , 

7) James' wording on the themes of prayer (1:6), titles (3:1), 
humiliation (4:10), and oaths (5:12) derives from Matthew 
since the gospel parallels for these texts are found in 
material peculiar to Matthew. 

2.2 With regard to similar subject matter Gryglewicz divides 
the parallels into three categories: 

A. Similar subjects with a different manner of treatment 
(pp. 37-40) . 

B. Similar subject matter where no certain dependence can be 
established since it is impossible to determine who profited 
from the writing of the other (pp. 40-43) , 

-^^Gryglewicz , "Jacques et Matthieu," 54. 

■l^Ibid. , 35. We will critique the use of common 
vocabulary in section 3.1, 


C. Examples of direct dependence of James upon the Gospel of 
Matthew (pp. 43--56). 

Since only the third category relates direct ly to the concerns of 

this study, we will concentrate our attention upon the following 

list of themes which Gryglewicz insists betray a dependence of 

James upon Matthew. 

1) The assurance of answered prayer ( Jas . 1:5; Mt . 7:7) and an 
explanation for unanswered prayer (Jas. 4:3; Mt . 7:8). (p. 44) 
Gryglewicz believes that the passive expression doOriaexaL auzQ 
indicates that one author has repeated the text of the other. 
Since Matthew consistently employs the passive voice to refrain 
from using the name of God, James must be repeating an expression 
in Matthew. 

2) Faith and doubt (Jas. 1:6; Mt. 21:21-23). (p. 45) 

The expression tv Trlaxet indicates James' use of Matthew since 
this phrase is intricately worked into the context of Matthew but 
is unnecessary and even hinders the clarity of thought in James, 
Both Matthew and James mention "doubt" Im.mediately after the word 
"faith" whereas in Luke these two concepts are no longer in close 

3) Hearing and doing (Jas, 1:22-25; Mt . 7:24-26). (pp. 46-47) 
The more fitting expression according to Jamesian vocabulary 
(4:11) as well as traditional usage (1 Mac. 2:67; Rom. 2:13) 
would have been Troir/xr/c; vofjou ; this expression is even trans- 
ported into the text by codex C and rainiscules 88, 915, 467, 242, 
1518, and 378. Therefore, James' choice of rroinziic, Aoyou at 1:22 
is without a doubt based upon his source, Mt . 7:24. 


4) From the mouth come both blessings and curses (Jas. 3:10; Mt . 
15:18-19) . (p, 47) 

Lx6}iaToc, and egepxeTai are found in both Jaraes and Matthew while 
Mk . 7:21-22 omits the word "mouth" and employs eKnopevouxaL . 

5) A fig tree metaphor (Jas, 3:12; Mt , 7:16). (pp. 47-48) 

Both author-s offer examples drawn from nature which are placed in 
the form of a question in order to express a contradiction. The 
illustration is not well adopted to James' argumentation since he 
is inserting a verbu^_ chrj,sti drawn from Matthew's gospel. 

6) Humility and exaltation (Jas. 4:10; Mt . 23:12). (pp. 48-49) 

7) Storing up treasures (Jas, 5:2-3; Mt . 6:19-21). (pp. 49-50) 
Three Greek words are repeated by each author ( 6 r]aav p lcuj , ariQ, 
|3pwatQ), but specific dependence upon Matthew is demonstrated by 
James' acceptance of the imprecise statem,ent that gold, and silver 
rust . 

8) The prohibition of oaths (Jas. 5:12; Mt . 5:33-37). (pp. 50-52) 
James' redaction is evident in the summary of the additional 
examples in Matthew by adding the phrase "or with any other 
oath", the alteration of the Semitic expressions (the dative with 
an oath transformed to the accusative and eoru to nxu), and the 
more comprehensible rendering of Matthew's expression by adding 
the article x6, 

9) Forgiveness of sins (Jas. 5:15; Mt . 12:32). (pp. 52-54) 

The expression diipe9iriaexai auxQ is chosen in both James and Mat- 
thew whereas in the Markan source (3:29) ouk exe l aifeaLu is latil- 
ized. Furthermore, Jas, 5; 15b em.ploys the plural object d^apx lac, 
with a singular verb aipeOnaezai , a grammatical discrepancy which 


inclicates that James must be citing source material. He appears 
to have deliberately left this expression in the form found, in 
Matthew to substantiate his teaching with the very words of 
Jesus . 

10} Clean hands ( Jas . 4:7; Mt . 5:30; 18:8). (p. 55) 
James softens a sharp word of Christ by referring to the cleans- 
ing of hands rather than their excision. 

2.3 The weaknesses of Gryglewicz's arguments come to light 
when it is observed that in each of the ten instances above, 
arguments of equal or greater weight can be adduced against 
dependence of James upon Matthew. Regarding answered prayer, the 
wording of Mt. 7:7-11 and Lk. 11:9--13 is so close that it is 
impossible to determine if James employed one gospel rather than 
the other. In both Matthew and Luke the passive voice is 
employed {SoOriaexat} -- a fact not given due attention by Grygle- 
wicz. Secondly, v^ihereas Gryglewicz contends that the addition of 
the concept "faith" at Jas, 1:6 is an intrusion from a Matthean 
source, one can just as easily find the solution in James' use of 
the genre of paraenesis where the interconnection of subject mat- 
ter is not always precise and logical but based instead upon 
catchwords. James slides easily from speaking about asking and 
receiving in prayer to the subject of asking in faith. Likewise 
in Jas. 4:3 the flow of thought is from asking and receiving to 
the subject matter of "how to ask". This time the positive 
advice of askincr in faith is replaced by the negative requirement 
of not asking wrongly to serve one's selfish desires. In each 
case a saying of Jesus is followed by a Jamesian qualification. 


Therefore James is not consciously alluding to a new saying of 
Jesus at 1:6 and much less to a particular gospel. James' unique 
analogy (doubting compared with waves of the sea) reinforces the 
difference from the gospels where faith is compared to the moving 
of mountains. Finally the Markan omission of the phrase "if you 
have faith and doubt not" does not indicate that James followed 
Matthew's rendering since Mark includes the phrase lit) 6 iaKpiOri 
later in the sentence. Matthew has simplified Mark's sentence 
structure by placing the two concepts of faith and doubt together 
at the beginning of the conditional sentence rather than in sepa- 
rate clauses as in Mark, Although the two concepts stand in 
closer proximity in the word order of Matthew, this fact alone 
does not warrant the singling out of one particular gospel as the 
source behind the Epistle of James. This argument, of course, is 
totally unnecessary if, as we propose, Jas , 1:6 is qualifying the 
saying of Jesus found in 1:5 rather than attaching an additional 
allusion to a Jesus logion about prayer. 20 

Gryglewicz argues that the use of Aoyou instead of y6|iou 
at Jas, 1:22 indicates that James borrowed phraseology from Mat- 
thew. However, if James was purposely transmitting a term from 
Mt , 7:24, would he not have preserved it in the plural form in 
which he found it? The presence of the term Aoyoq is easier 
explained by appealing to the context of James itself. The 
mentioning of "the word of truth" {A6y(j akneeiac,) at 1:18 and 
"the implanted word" (e]i^vzov Koyov) at 1:21 provides the transi- 
tion to the expressions "doers of the word" (TTOLntal Aoyou) and 

-'^Cf, ch . 3, section 2.5 


"hearer of the word" (aKpoaxric, Xoyou) in the following verses. ■'• 
Yet even if Gryglewicz were correct in postulating the presence 
of a gospel saying, it would be impossible to distinguish between 
Matthew and Luke since both choose the plural form of Aoyoc . 
Finally, contrary to Gryglewicz's supposition, the imagery 
employed within the examples does not converge. Admittedly both 
speak about a man {au6pi), but the situations described are so 
totally different (James: looking into a mirror- Matthew-, two 
houses in a storm) that the use of the common term avSpL plays no 
significance . 

The connection of Jas . 3; 10 with Mt . 15:18-19 is not a 
very widely recognized parallel. 22 jj-^ -f-|-^g gospels the emphasis is 
placed upon the evil qualities that flow from their source in the 
heart whereas inn James both good and evil expressions (blessings 
and curses) erupt from the mouth. In the gospels the theme is 
inner defilement whereas in James the impossibility of good and 
evil proceeding from the same source is stressed. Therefore 
Gryglewicz's word sequence parallel, axoiaaxac; ... e^epxe'cai, 
proves to be a superficial finding. Mark's preference for the 
verb &K7TopevoiiaL (Mt. 6x; Mk. llx; Lk . 3x; Jn . 2x) does not prove 
literary dependency but rather points to Matthew's literary art- 
istry. So that two identical verbs are not needlessly repeated 
Matthew varies the terminology after the phrase zb CKnopevoiiepa 
in 15:18. 

In the same context of James (3:12) Gryglewicz discerns 
another allusion to Matthew's gospel since James' illustration is 

21cf, ch, 3, section 2.7 

22only Schlatter and Gryglewicz offer support. 


not well adapted to the point he desires to emphasize. Grygle- 
wicz is correct in asserting that James shifts his use of imagery 
at 3:12, In 3:10-11 James employs two illustrations demon- 
strating the impossibilty of one source producing two opposite 
results: a mouth producing blessing and cursing and a spring 
pouring forth both fresh and brackish water. Then in 3:12 the 
imagery shifts to examples which display the impossibility of one 
type of object producing a totally different sort: a fig tree 
yielding olives; a grapevine, figs; or salt water, fresh. This 
shift, however, cannot be traced back to dependence upon Matthew 
since in James both the plants and the fruit are given positive 
connotations (a fig tree yielding olives or a grapevine, figs), 
whereas in the gospels good fruit (grapes, figs) and negatively 
conceived plants (thorns, thistles) are contrasted. Furthermore, 
only one word, ctukq, is common to both passages. The shift in 
James' imagery is probably due to the quotation of source 
material, but that source is not Matthew but rather everyday wis- 
dom sayings common to areas around the Mediterranean Sea where 
such crops are grov;n.2 3 

Gryglewicz fails to supply any grounds supporting a con- 
nection of Jas . 4:10 with Mt . 23:12 rather than Lk. 14:11; 
18:14b. In fact he does not even inform the reader of the 
presence of Lucan parallels. We agree that a saying of Jesus is 
being alluded to here, but to limit the similarities to the Mat- 
thean formulation is presumptuous. The variations in form 
between Matthew and Luke supply no clues that one version is 


Cf. ch, 3, section 3.4 


utilized rather than the other, ^4 

We agree with Gryglewicz that Jas . 5 : 2-.3a is closer to 
the Matthean parallel (6:19-21) than the Lucan (12:33b-34) since 
both James and Matthew choose the verb form Sr/aauplcw rather than 
the noun Onaavpoc, found In Luke. Yet the convergence is not so 
exact as to admit dependence upon the gospel. The themes of 
James and Matthew are similar, but the vocabulary is clearly 
divergent {arjxS^puza vs. a/ic; ; ^.oc; vs. (BpuaiQ) . Gryglewicz con- 
tends that the imprecise statement that gold and silver rust 
illustrates that James profited from the text of Matthew, 
However, the tarnishing of gold and silver was already described 
as rusting in earlier Jewish literature (Ep. Jer. 23), Further- 
more, it is doubtful whether Matthew himself is speaking about 
rust since ppQaiQ more likely designates the presence of worms. ^5 
A dependence upon Matthew is therefore excluded. 

Since Jesus' prohibition of oaths is not quoted by Luke, 
Gryglewicz contends that Jas. 5:12 is based upon Matthew's 
gospel. Yet certain stark divergencies between James and Mat~ 
thew^o have caused some exegetes to assert that "the wording of 
the positive ruling is sufficiently dissimilar as to give a dif- 
ferent meaning to the whole. "27 Gryglewicz fails to allow these 
differences in word choice to influence his conclusions about the 
source of this passage. The fact that Justin Martyr (1 Apol, 
16:5) harmonized the texts found in James and Matthew supports 
our conclusion that there are two separate traditions of the same 

24cf. ch. 3, section 4.5. 

^^cf. ch. 3, section 5.1, 

26cf. above, pp. 176ff,lS2. 

2'^Laws, James, 13. Cf , the arguments above, pp. 177-178 

log ion of Jesus. 

Gryglewicz believes that the singular verb {(Xi^eena-exai) 
referring back to the plural noun (djuapx tac) offers a clue that 
source material is visible at Jas . 5:15, He locates the source 
in Mt , 12:32 since Matthew has exactly the same wording (as^eOrSa- 
exQL avT-t^) while Mark reads ouic exe «- a^eaiv . However, it is 
totally unnecessary to compare Matthew with Mark since Mt . 12:32 
represents Q at this point in the narrative. Therefore Lk. 
12:10a also coincides with the wording of Jas. 5:15 although in 
10b Luke omits the pronoun avxhi ."^-^ Furthermore, in the textual 
tradition the singular verb in Jas, 5:15 in only a problem for 
later MSS: aipeQho-€xcxi is amended to cupeO^aovxai only in Greek 
Biblical documents of the ninth century or later. 29 Among modern 
commentators this apparent grammatical discrepancy is scarcely 
even mentioned. ^0 rpj^^ presexice of the singular verb might be 
explained by the supposition that James is referring to the fact 
of committing sins rather than to the sins themselves. But in 
all probability James is merely utilizing traditional Biblical 
phraseology-^l as is his custom throughout the epistle. There- 

^"Gryglewicz , "Jacques et Matthieu," 53, n. 56 mentions 
Lk. 12:10 but fails to allow its parallel wording to affect his 
argument and conclusion. 

29p, 69, 945, 1241, 1505, 1739, 1852, 2298, 2495, 
However, John Chrysostom (died 407) and a part of the Old Latin 
witnesses with the Vulgate appear to follow this reading. 

^"-^Dibelius , MuBner, Laws, and Davids fail to mention it 
as a problem. Maybe it is in the back of Davids' mind when he 
states that the perfect tense ( Trerro cnKcig } perhaps demonstrates 
that the person is in a "state of guilt". 

'^'^a(pe9riOexaL avxoZc, Lev, 4:20; Num. 15:25; a(^c9y-]aexaL 
QUTU Lev. 4:26,31,35; 5:6,^10,13,16,18; 6:6 (5:26 MT ) ; 19:22; Num. 
15:28A. The same form ajjapxiac; is employed in Lev. 4:26,35; 
5:10,13 but as a genitive singular. Therefore it must be 
admitted that a singular verb is not used in the OT with a plural 
referent , 


fore, the hypotheses that James has utilized a gospel source or 
has unintentionally included a grammatical error are inferior 
solutions. The above arguments are probably unnecessary, how- 
ever, since there is only slim evidence pointing to a gospel 
allusion at Jas . 5:15, Since James is definitely not thinking 
about the sin against the Holy Spirit^^ mentioned in Mt . 12:32 
and Lk. 12:10, the verbal contacts are only coincidental and 
should receive little attention . -^^ 

Gryglewicz offers absolu.tely no evidence that Mt , 5:30 
and 18:8 are the source of Jas. 4:7 rather thaii the parallel 
statement in Mk . 9:43. The fact that Matthew repeats this saying 
about cutting off the hand on two occasions rather than the 
single occurrence In Mark is no indication that Matthew is the 
source. Moreover, the cleansing of hands in Jas. 4:8 recalls 
standard OT purification language (Ps. 24:4) rather than Christ's 
word about amputating bodily members. The parallelism in Jas. 
4:8 between "cleanse your hands, you sinners" and "purify your 
hearts, you men of double mind" argues against any connection 
with the dominical saying since the heart would not likely be 
excised in a time of temptation. 

These counter arguments have demonstrated that Grygle- 
wicz ' s conclusions are built upon insufficient evidence and at 
times glaring omissions of material opposing his claims. 
Repeatedly Gryglewicz himself admits that the common themes of 

■^^ James only references to jryeupa (2:26; 4:5) are to the 
human spirit. 

^■^Only four other authors witness to this parallel: the 
exaggerated lists of Mayor and Schlatter as well as the catalog 
of Chaine which Gryglewicz and Feuillet have adopted. 


James and Matthew are developed in an independent fashion, 34 
Should this in itself not indicate that James' allusions to Mat- 
thean parallels are not as striking as Gryglewicz believes? 

3.0 Having sufficiently refuted the claims of Shepherd and 
Gryglewicz, the two most convinced proponents of a Matthean 
source, we will now attempt a more systematic discussion of the 
relationship between James and Matthew. We will first discuss 
common vocabulary, then proceed to analyze their use of beati- 
tudes and imagery, and finally comment upon the common themes of 
the law, righteousness, faith and works, perfection, and wealth 
and poverty. 

3.1 Gryglewicz has attempted to detect the presence of Mat- 
thean wording within the Epistle of James by identifying phrase- 
ology which is out of step with James' context or normal usage 
(section 2.1). Additional vocabulary characteristic of both 
James and Matthew is mentioned by other authors: c5iKaioaui/r] ( Jas . 
1:20; 3:18; Mt . 3:15; 5:6,10,20; 6:1,33; 21:32), xeAe LOQ (Jas, 
1:4,17, 27; 3:2; Mt . 5:48; 19:21), and napovcjia (Jas. 5:7; Mt . 
24:3,27, 3 7,39).'^^ Gryglewicz vjill admit only one Lucaii 
vocabulary parallel (Jas. 4:14; Lk. 12:47), but Feine^^ attempts 
to demonstrate that distinctive Lucan vocabulary is paralleled in 
the Epistle of James; 

^'^Qrygleviicz , "Jacques et Matthieu," 44,45,48,49,53,54. 

3 5 Laws , James , 12. 

^^Feine, Jakobusbr i_ef , 76. Karl F. Nosgen, "Der Ursprung 
und die Entstehung des dritten Evange Hums, " ThSKr (1880): 109 
adds several minor verbal parallels to this list: diKazacrzaata , 
avanx e Lu , axLp.a^eLi', danauau, en l (iXene l i^ , e rrepxecrea (. , 
in Lazpe(pe If , e^njiepoc; , t-}<Sovu, Kaxepx^crda t , kKuSoju , Aeinety, 
napoKunze IV , nopveia, aotpia, vnoSexs-CjOaL . Cf. also tables 1 and 
2 in Adamson, James: Man and Message, 147-149. 


1) drroxeAe LJ^ occurs only in the NT at Lk. 13:32; Jas . 1:15. 

2) Cjriij.£pov Kal avpiou only at Lk . 13:32,33; Jas. 4:13. 

3) /3padUQ only at Lk , 24:25; Jas. 1:19. 

4) yeAay and yeAuQ only at Lk . 6:21,25; Jas, 4:9, 

5) 7Tey0ffaeT.e Kal KAavaexe (Lk, 6:25) and xaAo: i'jn,)pn<jaxe Kal 
nevOria-aze Koi Khavaaxe (Jas. 4:9), 

6) eAeoQ noLeii.' only at Lk . 1:72; 10:37; .Jas. 2:13. 

7) eaenc, only at Lk . 23:11; Acts 1:10; 10:13; 12:21; Jas. 2:2,3. 

8) Aainrpoq, tied together with ecj6r]C, only In Lk. 23:11; Acts 
10:30; Jas, 2:2,3. 

9) paKorpc^eiy only at Lk. 1:48; Jas, 5:11, 

10) OLKxlpiiuu only at Lk . 6:36; Jas. 5:11, 

11) xa/re LytuCTLQ (outside the citation in Acts 8:33) only at Lk . 
1:48; Jas , 1:10; and Phil 3:21. 

12) Viijoc, only at Lk . 1:78; 24:49; Jas. 1:9 except for Rev. 21:16; 
Eph. 3:18; 4:8. 

In oxir estimation the only important verbal similarities 
found above are 4) and 5) which point in each case to an allusion 
to the woe section of the Lucan Serrnon on the Plain (6:24-26). 
The other vocabulary parallels located in Matthew and Luke tend 
to cancel each other out so that no great significance should be 
attached to either list. Furthermore, the similarities of 
terminology can all be explained by other solutions than that of 
dependence upon a gospel source. With regard, to Matthew, for 
instance, d iKaiocrvun and zeAeioq have their roots in OT (LXX) 
vocabulary, kKKAnwia would be encountered in any early Christian 
document, KOaiioc, is regularly employed in a pejorative sense in 
the NT, and napovcxLa is a standard term in Christian eschatology. 
Statistically, we discover that of the vocabulary found exclu- 
sively in James and the Synoptic gospels, 22 words are in common 
with Luke-Acts whereas a total of 9 coincide with the other 
gospels. ^^"^ According to Adamson's findings 80 percent of the 
words peculiar to and characteristic of James and the Synoptic 

^"^Cf. Davids, James, 49; James B, Adamson, An_J^nd_uctJ/ye 
Approach to the Epistle of James , 29 3-295. 


gospels are found in Luke.-^S Therefore verbal contacts with the 

Gospel of Matthew should not be overemphasized in the manner in 

which Gryglewicz and others promote their significance. 

3.2 Allusions to the beatitudes of Mt . 5:1-11 and Lk. 6:20- 

23) have often been discerned in the Epistle of James. Riesen- 

feld has voiced strong support for James' knowledge of the order 

and form of the Matthean beatitudes: 

Of the eight Matthaean beatitudes, four are to be found in 
the Epistle of James and in the same order, ,a fact, by the 
way, which cannot be accidental. In any case the author of 
the epistle presupposes parts of the Sermon on the Mount as 
clearly well known to his readers. Indeed, we can establish 
that the verbal form of the sayings of Jesus which James 
presupposes is that of M and not of Lk,^^ 

However, Riesenfeld's definition of an allusion to a gospel 

saying is too broad; we have established that Jas . 2:ls3; 3:18; 

and 5:10-11 are not allusions to specific verba Christi but only 

contain common themes (mercy in Jas. 2:13, righteousness and 

peace in 3:18, endurance in 5:10-11) and the coincidental use of 

vocabulary (iJCfKapLgw and 7rpO(|)ntnQ in Jas. 5:10-11). Furthermore, 

with regard to the only remaining allusion (Jas. 2:5), even 

Shepherd admits that this verse is closer in thought to the Lucan 

parallel. ^0 Finally, Riesenfeld's contention that the order of 

the sayings coincides with Matthew's sequence of beatitudes is 

far-fetched. Riesenfeld omits from his discussion the frequently 

^^Adamson, Jailies,.. Man_and_Messag_e , 150-151. The words 

common to James and Luke are predominantly from peculiarly Lucan 
material — 25 out of 37 instances or almost 70 percent. 

■^^Harold Riesenfeld, The _G gspel__XlL§.^J-_t.i9il„^ 
nings , 15 is referring to the parallels; Jas. 2 : 5=Mt . 5:3,5; 
2:''l3=Mt. 5:7; 3:18=Mt, 5:9; and 5:10~lla=Mt. 5:ll-12a, 

^"-^Shepherd , "James and Matthew," 43 states, "In James as 
in Luke, the poor are such in the literal sense, and woes are 
pronounced upon their opposites, the rich. James does not 
emphasize Matthew's religious distinction of poor in spirit." 


cited parallel Jas . 1 ; 2=Mt , 5:ll-12a as well as Shepherd's addi- 
tional references to beatitudes about meekness (3:13=Mt, 5:5), 
purity of heart (4:8=Mt. 5:8), and mourning (4:9=Mt. 5:4) since 
the acceptance of these parallels would not fit his scheme. 
Therefore, Riesenfeld's thesis is completely unfounded. The only 
valid allusions to the beatitudes and woes of the Sermon on the 
Mount/Plain find their parallels in Luke (Jas. 2:5=Lk. 6:20; 
4:9-Lk. 6:25; 5:l=Lk. 6:24). 

Shepherd attempts to establish that James was familiar 
with more than just the beatitudes common to both Luke and Mat- 
thew without insisting like Riesenfeld that a similar order of 
beatitudes is evident in James and Matthew. He suggests that 
"James knew a groixp of Beatitudes about the poor, the mourners, 
the merciful, and the afflicted, and possibly also macarisms upon 
the meek, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers . "^■'- Thus seven 
out of the eight Matthean blessing statements would be enumerated 
by James. Yet we have argued that such themes as endurance in 
trials, mercy, peace, and purity originate in Jewish wisdom 
and/or the ethical paraenetic teaching of the church. "^^ Some 
authors even claim that Matthew's peculiar blessing statements 
trace back to the paraenetic teaching tradition of the church 
influenced by the themes of Jewish wisdom and Jesus' preaching.*"^ 

■^^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 44. Cf. Hartin, "James 
and Q," 158-161 who argues that the similarities between James 
and the beatitudes proceed from a period prior to the final 
redaction by the evangelist. 

■^^Cf. ch. 3, sections 2.1, 3.3, 4,1, and Appendix I, sec- 
tion 4.8. Although the content of the beatitudes (Mt. 5:5,7-9) 
is similar to the wisdom virtues of Jas. 3:17, the vocabulary 
diverges: TrpaeZ^ vs. enieiKnQ; eAenp.auec, vs. eAeouQ; KaSaTrol vs. 
ofyv/]; elpnvoTTO Lo'i vs. elprw ^J<fl • 

"^^Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 69-72. 


Therefore there is no substantial evidence to validate the claim 
that James employed any of the macarisms peculiar to Matthew. 
However, the common thematic emphases of meekness (Mt. 5:5; 
11:29; 21:5; Jas . 1:21; 3:13), mercy (Mt. 5:7; 9:13; 12:7; 18:33; 
23:33; Jas . 2:13; 3:17), righteousness Mt . 3:15; 5:6,10,20: 
6:1,33; 21:32; Jas, 1:20; 2:23; 3:18) purity of heart (Mt. 5:8; 
23:25--26; Jas. 4:8) and peacemaking (Mt. 5:9; Jas. 3:17--18) in 
James and the material peculiar to Matthew is striking and could 
point to a concentrated Jewish-Christian area of influence such 
as greater Palestine. 

3.3 A second affinity of style within the teaching of James 
and Jesus is the employment of similar metaphors, analogies, and 
pictures. 4^ First, both of these artistic orators use imagery 
drawn from the sea to stress practical moral lessons. James 
employs the tossing action of the waves to describe doubt (1:6), 
the huge seafaring ships overcoming violent winds with only a 
small rudder (3:4) as well as the contrast between salt and fresh 
water to expound upon the ambiguous power of the tongue (3:12), 
and the mist that forms from the sea and vanishes in the sunlight 
to describe the brevity of life (4:14). Jesus describes a 
mountain cast into the sea (Mk. 11:23; Mt , 21:21) and a mulberry 
tree planted in the sea ( Lk . 17:6) to treat the subject of faith. 

^"^Christian F. Schmid, M^lJi^i^llls °JL9_9Y_^J--jyi§--,.M§w 
Te s_ t_^ament , 366 states, "The form, also, of James' Epistle bears 
an evident similarity to the Sermon on the Mount in its 
sententious language and figurative style, especially in the 
abundance of images derived from nature and mankind." Has- 
lehurst, "The Fifth Gospel," 101 remarks, "There is hardly a com- 
mon object of the countryside that our Lord does not use to 
illustrate some great spiritual truth, but St. James does the 


and the depth of the sea becomes a warning against leading astray 
any vulnerable disciple (Mt. 18:6; cf. EJc. 17:1-2). 

Secondly, the agricultural imagery of sowing and reaping 
is common to both James and Jesus, James employs sowing and 
reaping together in Jas . 3:18 to advocate peace, planting alone 
in 1:21 to encourage his readers to receive the gospel with meek- 
ness, and the harvest alone in 5:4 to warn against riches. 
Jesus' well~knovN?n parable of the sower (Mk. 4:1-9 par.) has been 
surrounded by other parables of sowing and reaping both in Mark 
(parable of the grov^ing grain at 4:26-29 and the mustard seed at 
4:30-34) and Matthew (parable of the tares at 13:24-30). In 
other contexts Jesus draws attention to the birds who neither sow 
nor reap ( Mt . 6:26; Lk. 12:24) to portray God's care for his 
people, the farmer who reaps where he has not sown (Mt. 25:24,26) 
to picture God, and the eschatological harvest (Mt. 9:37-38; cf. 
Jn. 4:35-38) to issue a call for workers. 

Other pictorial depictions beyond the category of nature 
imagery are commonly shared by James and Jesus. The new age is 
described as an eschatological door in Jas. 5:9 as well as 
throughout the gospels (Mt, 24:33b; 25:10; Mk. 13:29b; Lk . 13:24- 
25). When occupations are mentioned, farm workers (Jas. 5:4; Mt . 
20:1-16) or merchants (Jas. 4:13; Mt , 13:45; 25:16; Lk. 19:13) 
are often pictured. The standard description of the uncared for 
person is one without clothes and daily bread (Jas. 2:15; Mt . 
25:36,41; 6:25 par,). Finally, the healing and purifying proce- 
dures of anointing with oil (Jas, 5:14; Mk. 6:13) and the washing 
of hands (Jas, 4:8; Mk. 7:1-4 par.) are analogous. 


Another common feature is the repeated reference to OT 
paradigms. James supports his arguments by calling attention to 
such figures as Abraham (2;21--23), Rahab (2:25), the OT prophets 
(5:10), Job (5:11), and Elijah (5:17-18). In like manner Jesus 
refers to the lives of the prophets ( Mt . 5:10 par.; 23:29,37 
par.), David (Mk. 2:25 par,), Solomon (Mt. 6:29 par.; 12:42 
par.), Elijah (Lk. 4:25-26), and Jonah (Mt. 12:39-41 par.). 
This, of course, is not unexpected since wherever the OT served 
as a holy book of instruction and. edification, the recollection 
of heroes of faith has always been popular , 

Not only do we encounter equivalent imagery, but James 
and Jesus also employ pictorial language to describe similar 
topics. Both resort to metaphors to illustrate the disciple who 
is a hearer but not a doer: Jesus contrasts two houses built on 
sand and rock (Mt. 7:24-27 par.) while James pictures the forget- 
ting of an image in a mirror (1:24). The thought that small 
items (like faith or the tongue) work enormous results is con- 
veyed by a reference to a mustard seed by Jesus (Mk. 4:30-32 
par.) and to a horse's bit ( 3 : 3 ) , the rudder of a ship (3:4), and 
a tiny spark (3:5) by James. To underline the impossibility of 
certain phenomena James illustrates from a spring spewing forth 
both fresh and brackish water and a fig tree yielding olives or a 
grapevine, figs (3:11-12), whereas Jesus highlights the fact that 
a good tree cannot produce evil fruit (Mt. 7:17 par.; 12:33) and 
thorns and thistles cannot bring forth grapes and figs (Mt. 7:16 
par,). It is especially the condemnation of the rich that 
invited the utilization of metaphors and picturesque language. 


James contrasts a rich worshiper dressed in expensive clothing 
and gold, earrings with a shabily adorned, poor disciple (2:1-4). 
Jesus states that a rich disciple is more peculiar than a camel 
passing through a needle's eye (Mk. 10:25 par.). James predicts 
that the wealthy will be scorched to death like the flower 
withering from the heat (1:11), while rot, moths, and rust will 
consume their stored-up assets (5:2-3a). Through the medium of 
parable Jesus likewise describes the downfall of the wealthy (Lk. 
12:15-21; 16:19-31; Mk . 4:19 par.). 

Various explanations have been proposed for this similar 
imagery. James has been perceived as an intimate disciple of the 
earthly Jesus taking over his examples and mode of speaking.'*^ 
The use of the gospels themselves could also be postulated. 
However, the divergencies in vocabulary and exact imagery point 
rather in the direction of corresponding experiences within a 
similar environment or a mutual affiliation with the religious 
expressions and cultural patterns of the Jewish faith through 
their religious upbringing. 

3.4 Heading the list of themes where James and Matthew stand 
in the same theological camp is the concept of the law. Of all 
the NT writers the closest perspective to that of Matthew is 
without a doubt the Epistle of James. Both understand the teach- 
ing of the church as a new Christianized law (Mt. 5:17-20; Jas . 
2:8-11; 4:11-12).*^ Both speak about the law as the way to per- 

*^Adamson , James: Man and Message , 221 says, "James 
speaks as Jesus speaks rather than as Jesus is spoken about." 

^^Cf. Davies, Setting, 401; Furnish, Lpjve __C^mman_d , 177, 
Oscar Seitz, "James and" the Law," _SE 2: 485 disagrees, contending 
that James is simply referring to the law of Moses without over- 
tones of a new law. 


fection (Mt. 5:48; Jas. 1:25).^"^ In both the law of love is, on 
the one hand, set alongside the other commandments which together 
constitute the law (Mt, 19:18-19; Jas. 2:9-11) and, on the other 
hand, is given special recognition as the most important of the 
commandments, one which fulfils the whole law (Mt. 22:37-40; Jas. 
2:8). Both James and Matthew, therefore, recognize a new law 
summarized by Jesus without setting aside the old moral law of 
the OT. The gospel and the law are thus linked together for both 
authors. The gospel of the kingdom (Mt, 4:23; 9:35; 24:14) does 
not relax even the least of the commandments (5:19) for Matthew; 
likewise in James the fulfilling of the royal law of the kingdom 
(2:8) does not absolve one from keeping the whole law (2:10). 
For Matthew the word is completed by doing the commands of the 
Master (7:21), and James exhorts his readers to "be doers of the 
word", an expression which could just as easily mean "be doers of 
the law" . 

Both authors emphasize the internal dimensions of the law 
written upon the character of a person. Matthew internalizes the 
commands against murder and adultery so that they become matters 
of the heart dealing with anger (5:22) and lust (5:28). James' 
reference to "the law of liberty" (1:25; 2:12) demonstrates his 
stress on the inward voluntariness of the law.^° Since an atti- 
tude of mercy is for Matthew one of the weightier matters of the 
law (23:33) , he twice repeats the ordinance of Hos , 6:6, "I 
desire mercy and not sacrifice" (9:13; 12:7). James, likev^rise. 

^^Hoppe, Hintergrund Jakgbusbx-'ief es , 128; Ulrich Luck, 
Die Vollkommenheitsf orderung der Bergpredigt , 3 6. 
~^^f . ch. 3, section 3.2. 


emphasizes mercy in the conclusion to his presentation of the 
commandments, "For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown 
no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment" (2:13), Every time 
the law is mentioned in James it is specifically the moral law 
that is implied. Matthew, likewise, minimizes a strict outward 
observation of the ceremonial law. Although the sabbath is still 
observed in Matthew's community (24:20; 12:1-~14) and the Jewish 
food laws still appear to be in force (Mk. 7:19b is omitted), 
Matthew calls for mercy rather than rigid slavery to this whole 
legalistic system of ceremonial ordinances . '^^ 

Yet these similarities need not lead us to the conclusion 
that James was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew either in oral 
or written, form since no specific verse to verse parallels can be 
identified. Nor are we forced to admit that these two documents 
stem from the same specific geographical region since the varying 
polemical stance in each document argues against this conclusion. 
Notably in chapters 5:20-6:18 and 23 Matthew polera.icizes against 
the synagogue and calls the Pharisees to account for their 
alteration and defacing of the law. The Epistle of James, on the 
other hand, "contains no such explicit attack, nor can it be seen 
to be implicit in his writing at any point. "^'-' Within the 
Christian community itself Matthew is struggling against an 
antinomianism^l (7:21-23; 24:10-11) which has taken on different 

'^^Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," 91 
explains that "Matthew retains the ceremonial law, but it has 
undergone a reassessment under Christian motives." 

^"^Laws, James, 15. Cf. also Robinson, Re_dat_in_g, 120. 

^-^Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," 160,163 
labels the opponents of both James and Matthew as libertines or 
antinomians. James E. Davison, " Anomia and the Question of an 
Antinomian Polemic in Matthew," JBL 104(1985): 628,630,634-635 


dimensions than the libertinism which James is afraid will ensue 
if an overzealous "Paulinism" is not balanced with his concept of 
the relationship between faith and works. They are "engaged in 
different debates". ^2 whereas "Matthew opposes a group who appeal 
in support of their libertinism to the fact that Christ has 
abolished the la.w,"^3 James resists a libertine view of justifi- 
cation. Whereas Matthew's opponents rely on their charismata 
(7:22), James' adversaries "appeal to their ttuttiq in support of 
their neglect of works, "^'5'* Finally, the order of the commands in 
Jas. 2:11 follows that of Mk . 10:19, Lk. 18:20, and Rom. 13:9, 
whereas Mt . 19:18 and 5:21,27 follow the reverse order found, in 
the MT . Therefore, the matching outlook of James and Matthew on 
the subject of the law must not be accounted for with theories of 
literary source and common geographical origin, but rather in the 
similar Jewish-Christian background of the authors. 
3.5 The coinciding content given to the concept of righteous- 
ness is also striking, Jas, 1:20 emphasizes the fact that human 
anger can never work the righteousness of God. Similarly in Mat- 
thew's first example of the righteousness which exceeds that of 

argues that laxness (not practicing the law) and not 
antinomianism (being against the law in theory) is the problem, 
but both are present in Matthew with 5:16-19 against 
antinomianism and 7:15-23; 24:11-12 against laxness. There might 
not have been a specific group of ultra-Paulinist libertines 
which Matthew opposed since there is an absence of any Pauline 
contacts in Matthew (cf. Kilpatrick, Ox.iSL4jl§,„P.J_MMjtll§w ' 130- 
131), but at least the fear of such a group is evident in the 
polemic of 5:17-19. 

^ 2 Laws , James , 15, 

^^Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," 164. 

^^Ibid., 162, From these differences we should not con- 
clude, as Barth does, that Matthew's opponents were not ultra- 
Paulinists. The antagonists were the same; disparate polemics 
occurred in different geographical locations. 


the scribes and, Pharisees (5:20) , all anger will be punished 
(5:22) since it does not meet the standards of God's superior 
righteousness. Jas . 3:18 explains that righteousness will result 
when the way of peace is followed. Likewise, in the beatitudes 
of Matthew the theme of righteousness (5:6,10) is in close 
proximity to such attributes as meekness, mercy, purity, and 
peacemaking. This righteousness is to be pursued with the same 
intensity as the goal of the kingdom (6:33), since the kingdom of 
heaven is manifested through such attributes. A third reference 
in Jas. 2:23 discloses that James' view of righteousness involves 
the performance of religious duties. Human action is emphasized 
in contrast to Pauline theology where righteousness is first of 
all an imputed gift of God,^^ Similarly in Matthew human perform- 
ance stands in the foreground . -^'^ Mt . 12:37 teaches that "by your 
words you will be justified, and by your words you will be con- 
demned," and at Mt , 16:1 the RSV even translates the word 
6 iKaLoavvn by the term piety: "Beware of practicing your piety 
before men." Without a doubt James and Matthew possess a uniform 
understanding of righteousness whose degree of congruity is 
unparalleled by other NT writers. 

3.6 In view of the definition of righteousness which both 
James and Matthew employ, one would expect that their understand- 
ing of the concepts good works and perfection would also be 
similar, and this is indeed the case. For both, faith is recog- 

^^Of. ch. 3, section 2.6. 

^®Cf. R.T, France, Matthewj^ Evangelist and Teacher , 266- 
267; Benno Przybylski , Righte ousne ss in Matthew and his Wor_l_d o_f 
Thougfht, 105-107; Strecker, We^, 149-158,179-181; Schweizer, Mat- 
thew, 142-143. 

nized through works (Jas. 2:18,22) as a tree by its fruit (Mt. 
7;16--20) , Words alone are not sufficient to fulfil the divine- 
will (Jas, 2:15-16), and hearing must always be completed by 
doing (1:22-25). Likewise for Matthew it is not enough to say 
"Lord, Lord" (7:21); only the house built upon hearing and doing 
will endure the storm (7:24-27), Since Jesus' disciples are to 
teach the world by doing good works (5:16), Matthew's criticism 
of the Pharisees is that their teaching does not result in 
apprpriate actions (23:3). From this similar perspective 
Shepherd^"^ argues that James follov\?s the lead of Matthew espe- 
cially since the Matthean additions to the Q statement, "And 

every one who hears these j niY_words, and does them" (Mt. 7:26; 

Lk. 6:49) is close to Jas. 1:23, "If anyone is a hearer of the 
word and not a doer." Yet we have already shovm that James' 
terminology can be traced instead to his own context, and that 
the illustrations which follow bear no resemblance to each 
other. ^S Furthermore, there is no evidence that the antinomians 
of Matthew "appealed to n Lxjx iQ in support of their neglect of 
works in the way the libertines of the Epistle of James did."^^ 
Therefore, the best explanation for the coinciding perspective 
and the similar definition of terms is the common Jewish- 
Christian background of James and Matthew rather than the use of 
a literary source. 

3,7 The relationship between faith and perfection in James 
and Matthew is parallel to their understanding of faith and 

^"^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 45. 

S^Cf. ch. 3, section 2.7. 

^^Barth, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law," 162 


works. The goal of James' exhortations is that his recipients 
may be perfect and complete (1:4b), able to bridle the whole body 
(3:2). Abraham is held up as an example for James' audience 
since his faith was perfected by his works (2:22). In Jas . 1:3-4 
tested faith, after producing the work of steadfastness, results 
in perfection. By calling for perfection he is not placing an 
imperfect attainable standard over against a higher ideal 
standard; there is no elitism in James. Nor is the central 
thrust of the term maturity as in Paul. Instead as Hort 
explains, "It expresses the simplest idea of complete goodness, 
disconnected from the philosophical idea of a xeAoQ."®^ James' 
concern is mainly ethical. Complete goodness is pictured as 
faith and works marching together (2:22), as a person completely 
in charge of all the evil desires within (3:2). To help his 
people in this task God has given completely good gifts (1:17) 
along with a completely good law of liberty (1:25), In turn a, 
disciple must strive to compleite the work of endtirance (1:4) and 
practice (teAew) the love command (2:8), 

In Matthew as in James the theme of perfection is closely 
linked with doing the complete will of God.^l The exhortation in 
Mt . 5:48, "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly 
Father is perfect," Is a call to put into practice all that has 
been said about the greater righteousness in 5:21-47. Although 

^^Hort , Jajnes, 6. 

^■'■Cf, Schweizer, Matthew , 135; Hoppe, Hindergrund 
Jakobusbrief es , 139. Guelich, .Sermon., 235-236 contends that Mat- 
thew emphasizes the new relationship between God and humanity in 
Jesus as the means of perfection and righteousness. Righteous- 
ness is a gift of God (Mt. 5:6), yet Matthew's emphasis is else- 
where -- upon human conduct as the arena where perfection is dis- 


the rich young man of Mt . 19:17-22 states that he has observed 
all the ordinances of the law from his youth, Jesus' call to per- 
fection (19:21), which the young man is unable to follow (19:22), 
points out that his faith was not being transferred into action. 
Since the term "wholeness" probably best translates the force of 
teAeioQ,®^ the rich man's inability to be perfect reveals that he 
was unable with his whole being to be obedient to the will of 
God. This intimate connection between wholeness and perfection 
in both authors is verified by the fact that James places the 
terms xeKe loc, and oKoKhnpoi (1:4) right beside each other. For 
both James and. Matthew perfection is a positive and attainable 
object rather than something only possible for the elite. ^-^ The 
sole difference between the two lies in the fact that for Matthew 
perfection denotes "something more", an extra-righteousness which 
is the mark of the Christian congregation, whereas James nowhere 
contrasts a Jewish and Christian view of perfection or righteous- 
ness . 

3.8 The thematic similarites with Matthew vanish when we dis- 
cuss the subject of wealth and poverty. Even Shepherd, a chief 
proponent of a Matthean source, admits that James' perspective on 
this subject stands closer to that of Luke.^^ The Matthean 
expression "poor in spirit" (5:3) "brings out more forcefully the 

^^Guelich, Sermon, 234-235. Proof that this meaning was 
contemporary with the time of Jesus and the early church is shown 
by its frequent use at Qumran: CD 2:15; IQM 7:5; 14:7; IQH 1:36; 
2 2 times in IQS. Cf. Luck, Vollkommenheitsf orderung , 30-38 for 
references within wisdom literat'ure. 

^'^Regarding James see Laws, James, 54; DuPlessis, Perfec- 
tion in NT, 17 3, Regarding Matthevj see Barth, "Matthew's 
Understanding of the Law," 96, n. 3 and Edward J. Yarnold, 
"TeAeioQ in St. Matthew's Gospel," SE, 4: 271. 

^^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 43. 


ethical and spiritual association of poverty , "^''■•' while in Luke we 
encounter hostility to the rich per se (1:53; 6:24; 12; 16-21; 
16:19-25), Luke's picture coincides with the portrait of James' 
community where riches and poverty are spoken about in a literal 
sense. ®^ The Christian community must be warned not to follow in 
the footsteps of the rich since they will surely pass away ( Jas . 
1:10-11; 5:1-6). Nor is the church to seek the benevolence of 
the wealthy by showing partiality on their behalf (2:1-4) since 
God places himself on the side of the poor (2:5-7).^'^ The com- 
munity of James is struggling against rich oppressors and the 
corrupting evils of wealth, whereas the Gospel of Matthew nowhere 
reveals a polemic against the v,fea.lthy.^^ It is doubtful whether' 
the Gospel of Matthew witnesses to an affluent community, ^^ but 
certainly Luke demonstrates more concern regarding the issue of 
the poor and rich as evidenced by Matthew's application of the 
beatitude to "the poor in spirit" and the omission of the woes 

SSMarshall, Lixke , 2 50. 

^^Laws, J ajne s , 103 explains that James is steering a mid- 
dle course between the Matthean and Lucan versions of Jesus' 
promise of the kingdom to the poor. But she is mistaken in con- 
tending that Luke believes poverty per se will be rewarded. 
"Poor" in Lk. 6:20 includes a dimension of faith as witnessed in 
the intertestaraental tie between poor and pious. Cf. Dibelius 
and Greeven, James, 84; Leander E. Keck, "The Poor among the 
Saints," ZNW 56(1965): 100-129. 

^^Cf, above, pp. 166-168. 

^^Davies, Sejtting, 213. 

^^Kilpatrick, Origins of Matthew , 125-126 and D.L. 
Mealand, Poverty and Expe_ct_at i_o_n _in t_he G.osp_e_ls, 14-21 contend 
that the wicSe range of money (Mt. 10: 9-10), the capacity for 
giving displayed in 6:3-4, and the change from a condemnation of 
possessions to riches in Mt . 19:23 (ttAouctioq) vs. Mk . 10:23 
(XPnjiaxa) preclude an affluent community, but Thomas E. Schmidt, 
Ho st Y to Wea rt h in the S ynopi i_c Go sp^el s , 121,130,131,134 
points out that Matthew does not soften the traditions and 
Pedrito U. Maynard-Reid, Poverty and We_alth in .James ' 34 argues 
that Mt . 5:3-12 and 25:31-36 offer an inclusio on the physical 
and economic plight of the oppressed. 


against the rich."'--^ Certainly the divergencies between James and 
Matthew on the theme of vjealth and poverty sufficiently disclaim 
any geographical connection of oi'igin. On the other hand, the 
emphasis upon the poor in James and Luke's source L (but not in 
Acts where 7tzux6c, never occurs) could reveal the presence of a 
Palestinian theme, 

3,9 An extended list of minor themes are often compiled to 
stress the coinciding emphases of James and Matthew. Both con- 
tain warnings about the judgment to come {Jas. 2:12-13; 4:11-12; 
5:9,12; Mt . 5:21; 10:15; 11:22,24; 12:36 etc), Gehenna (Jas. 3:6; 
Mt. 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33), and the parousia. (Jas. 
5:7f; Mt . 24:3,27,37,39), yet Matthew's distinctive eschatologi- 
cal terms {jraXiyyet/eaia 19:28; crvuxeAe La xov alQvoc, 24:3; 28:20; 
13:40,49) are never appropriated by James. Although both define 
sin not merely as overt acts but also as thoughts and words (Jas. 
1:19,20,26; 3:1-12; Mt . 5:22,28), the vocabulary widely diverges 
with James choosing aiiapzLa throughout (1:15; 2:9; 4:17; 
5:15,16,20) while Matthew employs aiiapxiai, ajjapT )-7,uaxa ,, and 6<peiXfmaxa . Both warn against anxiety over the 
future (Jas. 4:14f; Mt . 6:34), but James discerns the problem as 
overconf idence whereas Matthew cautions against overanxiety. 
Both exhort against seeking the status and title of a teacher 
(Jas. 3:1; Mt . 23:8), yet James nowhere reflects Matthew's 
specific accusation against those coveting the Jewish title 
"Rabbi". Both share a confidence in answered prayer when asked 

'^'^Cf , Streeter, Pr_ij2it^ive_jChjarch 193, Gundry, Matthew, 
68ff demonstrates how Matthew revises the beatitudes by means of 
the woes. 


in faith ( Jas . 1:5-6; Mt . 7:7-1.1), but in Matthew "good gifts" 
are received whereas in James the gift of wisdom is promised. 
Wisdom for James is practical wisdom (1:5; 3:17), whereas in M<at- 
theiw wisdom is often personified (11:19,28-30; 23:34 vs. Lk . 
11:49) , ' •*• Both advocate speaking the truth rather than using 
oaths, but certain added features in Matthew's text point to 
emphases which are peculiarly Matthean.'^^ 

Frequently a lengthly list of Jaraesian themes are 
enumerated as particular parallels to Matthew's Sermon on the 
Mount , •* 3 yet the uselessness of such compilations in determining 
a literary source is substantiated by parallel lists which draw 
attention to Lucan conrp lament s . '^'* The only legitimate use of 

■^•''Hartin, Jame_s and Q, 95-96,135,241 contends that the 
expression "Lord of glory" at Jas. 2:1 implies that James also 
personalized wisdom since that expression is employed in 1 Cor. 
2:8 in a context about wisdom, and the "Father of Glory" in Eph. 
1:17 communicates the spirit of wisdom. However, in Jas, 2:1-13 
the subject of wisdom is not even discussed and the expressions 
"Lord of Glory" (1 En. 36:4; 40:4; 25:3), "God of glory" (Acts 
7:2; Ps . 29:3), and "King of glory" (Ps, 24:7-10) are not con- 
nected with wisdom but exalted victory. The parallel in Sir. 
35:12-13 ("For the Lord is judge, and there is no partiality v^ith 
him. He will show no partiality against the poor,") demonstrates 
that the Lord of glory in Jas. 2:1 refers to Lord, the exalted 
judge. The term "partiality" (the theme of Jas. 2:1-13) is even 
a translation from the Greek phrase, So^a npoadnrov (Sir. 35:12). 

^^cf , above, p, 182. Matthew's attack on Jewish 
casuistry is also unique (23:16-22). 

'^^Schraid, T he^ lo5X._£.l_NT ' 365-366 refers to joy in temp- 
tation (Jas. 1:2; Mt. 5:12), the warning against wrath (Jas, 
1:19-20; Mt . 5:22), the commendation of gentleness ( vJas .. 1:21; 
3:13; Mt . 5:41), the taming of the tongue (Jas. 1:26; Mt . 5:22), 
the judgment on the unmerciful (Jas. 2:13; Mt . 7:2), friendship 
with the world being enmity with God (Jas. 4:4; Mt . 6:24), 
dependence upon God (Jas. 4:13-16; Mt . 6:25), and the unresisting 
spirit of the righteous (Jas. 5:6; Mt . 5:39ff). 

^^Feine, Jakobusbrief , 75-76 enumerates the following: 
the advantages of benevolence (Lk. 12:33; 16:1-6; Jas. 2:15-17; 
1:27; 3:17), warnings against making plans without seeking the 
will of God (Lk, 12:16-21; Jas. 4:13-15), the view that the fam- 
ine in Elijah's time lasted three and a half years (Lk. 4:25; 
Jas. 5:17), the enthusiastic striving after the lost (Lk. 15:1- 


these parallels would be to validate the claim that James and 
Jesus share many common themes. These correlative emphases are 
explained by the fact that "the parallels which exist between 
Matthew and James are in sayings which could readily be absorbed 
into the general stock of Christian ethical teaching. "^^ James 
appropriated the themes of Jesus' preaching through the 
ecclesiastical paraenetic tradition which both he and Matthew 
possessed. It is unnecessary to assume contact with one or more 
of the Synoptic gospels. 

4.0 James preserves independently of Matthew and Luke the 
memory of a tradition of the logia of Jesus. '^^ This is authenti- 
cated primarily by the fact that in James' conscious allusions to 
the sayings of Jesus, there is no single tradition that is con- 
sistently reproduced. Instead the form of these sayings is 
influenced by particular Jarnesian emphases as well as the parae- 
netic teaching of the early church.^-* The commonalities between 
James and Luke can be explained by their corporate knowledge of 
the teachings of Jesus and their opposition to the same social 
evils. "^8 rpj^g parallels with Matthew center primarily upon their 
common theological understanding of such themes as the law, 
righteousness, perfection, mercy, prohibition of oaths, and the 
relationship between faith and works. The differences in their 

32; 19:10; 23:43; Jas . 5:19-20), the teaching that God requires 
more of some than others (Lk. 12:48; Jas. 3:1), the evil of 
premeditated sinning (Lk. 12:47; Jas. 4:17), and God's goodness 
in giving (Lk. 11:13; Jas. 1:17), 

'^^Laws, James, 14. 

"^^Cf. Davids, "James and Jesus," 68. 

'^'^Cf. ch. 7, section 1.3. 

"^^Cf. Knowling, James , xxii; R. Leconte, Les Epitres 
Catholiques , 12; Laws, , 12-15; Davids, James , 49; Williams, 
John and James, 86. 


theology of wealth, Matthew's peculiar emphasis with i-egard to 
oaths, their divergent polemic against antinomianism, and their 
own distinctive vocabulary substantiate our conclusion of inde- 
pendent traditions. It is highly plausible that James and Mat- 
thew appropriated their similar theological views through their 
upbringing in Judaism and their experience in the Jewish- 
Christian community. Furthermore, the similar placing of loose 
sayings (often connected by catchwords) into lengthy discourses 
of logia by Matthew and extended paraenetic paragraphs by James 
accounts for the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is often said 
to be the primary so^irce of parallels between James and the 
gospels. Therefore, we cannot accept any hypothesis which 
attempts to prove either oral (Shepherd) or written (Gryglewicz) 
dependence of James upon one of the gospels. Neither does the 
theory of geographical origin explain both the distinct 
similarities and yet the obvious divergencies of the Epistle of 
James with the Synoptic gospels. '^^ The Epistle of James embodies 
an independent tradition of the teachings of Jesus embedded in 
Jewish concepts and background and intricately absorbed into the 
ethical teaching of the early church. 

^^Although no specific geographical location such as 
Antioch in Syria can be posited, the similar themes between James 
and the material unique to Matthew could point to a concentrated 
Jewish-Christian population such as greater Palestine. 

Chapter 5 



1.0 We have assembled compelling evidence (chapter 4) that 
the form of the sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James is not 
dependent upon the Matthean or Lucan traditions. Moreover, we 
have already established (chapters 2 and 3) that James does not 
cite the sayings of Jesus in the same manner as his OT quotations 
i.e. with introductory formulations and almost verbatim trans- 
cription for the purpose of grounding his arguments in the recog- 
nized authority of scripture. Neither is the authority of Jesus 
himself appealed to as when Paul and the Apostolic Fathers intro- 
duce allusions to dominical sayings with an introductory formula. 
James' allusions to sayings of Jesus are more comparable to the 
manner in which OT allusions are treated. On several occasions^ 
James repeats phraseology from the OT , not to appeal to an out- 
side authority, but rather to transmit the accepted ethical 
teachings in traditional language. No formulae citandd are 
employed in the OT allusions, and the wording of the saying is 
molded to fit the context within the new body of literature as 
well as the specific purposes of the author. These same charac- 
teristics typify the ethical exhortations reminiscent of the 
teaching of Jesus. Some commentators believe that the 
similarities and divergencies with the gospels are explained by 

^Cf. ch, 2, sections 3.1-3.6. 


the personal memory of Jesus' brother, James of Jerusalem, who 
reproduced his own peculiar recollections of what he had heard. 
We have discarded this thesis since there is no scriptural evi- 
dence that Jesus' brothers were close to his earthly ministry 
until after the resurrection (Mk. 3:21,31; Jn . 7:5; Acts 1:14; 1 
Cor. 15:7). 2 Where then are we to seek a solution to explain the 
form in which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted in James? 

The Postulation of Progressive Stages in the Transmission 

of the Sayings of Jesus 

2.1 Kittel has concluded that the solution lies in the postu- 
lation of progressive stages in the transmission of the sayings 
of the Jesus-tradition, The end product of this process is per- 
ceived in the writings of Justin Martyr and the later church 
fathers who cjuote Jesus' sayings as scriE)ture'3 or at least intro- 
duce citations as dominical sayings with all the authority that 
this implied,'* The beginning of this process is supposedly 
illustrated in the Epistle of James where only allusions without 
introductory f orsnulations are encountered. Between these two 
periods Kittel deduces a second stage which clearly progresses 
from an early employment of allusions to a later use of cita- 
tions. Whereas Paul predominantly employs allusions to the 
Jesus- tradit ion with only an occasional formula citandi ,^ the 
Apostolic Fathers regularly quote the sayings of Jesus with an 

^Cf. ch. 1, section 3.1. 

3jUSt., Dial. 100:1; 103:6,8; 104:1; 105:6; 106:3,4; 

^Jnst. , 1_AEo1, 15:1,8,9,10; 16:1,5,6,9; Dial- 17:3,4; 
35:3,7 etc. 

^1 Cor. 7:10 is the clearest example and the only one 
mentioned by Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort," 93. 


introductory formula and only seldomly allude to dominical 
sayings in the manner of the Epistle of James. Thus one 
encounters according to Kittel an increasing utilization of cita- 
tions and a decreasing of the free, loose employment of Jesus' 
words in the form of mere allusions. 

In addition to appealing to these progressive stages, 
Kittel calls attention to signs which indicate that the Epistle 
of James was written at an early date. He specifically refers to 
the strong eschatological expectations (pp. 83-84), the social 
situation of poverty and trials reminiscent of the famine during 
the time of the Apostolic Council (pp. 81-82), the evidence for a 
Palestinian, preHellenistic background (pp. 78-81), and James' 
failure to mention his kinship with Jesus as an indication that 
the actual brother of Jesus wrote this epistle at an early date 
(pp. 73-74). Kittel believes that if an early dating can be 
established, then attestation for an early stage of logia trans- 
mission would logically follow. 

In a second article on this subject^ Kittel continues his 
arguments for an early dating by contrasting the teachings of the 
Apostolic Fathers and James on the subjects of faith and works 
(pp. 56-68) and eschatology (pp. 68-83). Criticism regarding his 
first article,'^ however, has forced him to modify his argument 
about progressive stages and to recognize the magnitude of allu- 
sion.s in the writings of many Apostolic Fathers. Kittel no 

^Gerhard Kittel, "Der Jakobusbrief und die Apostolischen 
Vater, ZNW 43(1950-1951): 54-112. 

^Specifically Kurt Aland, "Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und 
der Jakobusbrief," ThLZ 69(1944): 97-104. 


longer contrasts the complete lack of quotation formulas in James 
with the regular employment of citation formulas by the Apostolic 
Fathers but concentrates instead on the frequency of the employ- 
ment of allusions in each.^ 
book number of words citations allusions 

James^ 1500 18-20 

Didache 2250 4 23 (48) 

1 Clement 10,500 2 7 (14) 
Ignatius' epistles^O 8000 14 (32) 
Polycarp to Phil. 1700 4 4 (17) 
Barnabusll 6750 4 3 (19) 

2 Clement 1800 12-14 4 (30) 
Shepherd of Hermasl2 27,000 1 5 (52) 

Kittel contends that by comparing the length of each book with 
the number of allusions to Synoptic material, the only writing of 
the Apostolic Fathers which contains a comparable number of allu- 
sions with the Epistle of James is the Didache. James' greater 
frequency of allusions is thus utilized to substantiate Kittel 's 
claims of a first stage in the transmission of the logia of Jesus 
and an early authorship of James. 

"Kittel follows the study made by the Committee of the 
Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the 
4E9sjtod_i_c_|^athers . Aland's ( "Herrenbruder Jakobus," T04) cal- 
culations are put in parenthesis, 

®In his earlier article, "Der geschichtliche Ort des 
Jakobusbrief es , " Kittel lists 26 allusions, but here (p. 84) he 
admits that six to eight are doubtful. 

^'-'Kittel, "Jakobusbrief und Apostolischen Vater," 95 
gives a breakdown of Ignatius' letters with the number of words 
and allusions: Eph. 1800 6; Mag. 1100 1; Trail. 1000 1; 
Rom. 1100 1; Phld. 1050 1; Smyr . 1200 2; Pol. 850 2. 

■'■■^The four citations consist of OT quotations put into 
the mouth of Jesus. 

^^Kittel, "Jakobus und Apostolischen Vater," 105-108 
lists about 16 other uncertain allusions as well as six occasions 
where the imagery in the Shepherd's parables is similar to Jesus' 
illustrations . 


2.2 Kittel's thesis has not received much positive affirma- 
tion within the scholarly world. 1^ The recurring argument against 
Kittel is the continuing employment of allusions without an 
introductory formula within the writings of not only James but 
also Paul, Peter, and the Apostolic Fathers. The definition of 
an allusion differs from author to authorl^ ^^ evidenced by the 
fact that Furnish will admit less than ten purposeful allusions^^ 
to the sayings of Jesus in the whole Pauline corpus whereas Resch 
discovers over a thousand.!^ Although allusions are difficult to 
enumerate, Davies' catalogue of about thirty allusions is an 
average estimate. -^^ This compares to only six explicit Pauline 
citations of a word of Christ or a command of the Lord: 1 Cor. 
7:10-11 (Mk. 10:11-12; Mt , 5:32; 19:9; Lk . 16:18); 1 Cor. 7:25; 

; Mt. 10:10; Lk . 9:3; 10:7); 1 Cor. 11:23- 

-'-^Cf. ch . 1, section 3.6, 

14p,.jj, clist inct ions between citations, allusions, and 
parallels of content and vocabulary see ch. 7, section 1.1. 

^^Victor P. Furnish, The olo gy and Ethics in Paul, 53-54 
mentions Rom. 12:14=Mt. 5:44; "'l2 : 17=Mt .~5': 39f f ;' 13:7=Mt. 22:15- 
22; 14:13=Mt. 18:7; Mk , 9:42; Lk . 17:1-2; 14:14=Mt. 15:11; Mk . 
7:15; 1 Thess . 5 : 2=Mt . 24:43; Lk . 12:39; 5:13==Mk. 9:50; 5:15=Mt. 
5:38-48. With Dale C. Allison Jr., "The Pauline Epistles and the 
Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels," NTS 28(1982): 10 
we should also include 1 Cor. 13:2=Mk. 11:23; Mt . 21:21, David 
M. Stanley, "Pauline Allusions to the Sayings of Jesus," CBQ 
23(1961) : 26-39 contends that Paul is familiar with many of 
Jesus' parables (pp. 34-38) and his doctrine of prayer (pp. 30- 
32) but his conclusions are overexaggerated , 

l^Alfred Resch, Per Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in 
ihren gegenseitigen Verhaltnis untersucht , 35-154, 468-50 7. Wil- 
liam D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 137 compiles Resch 's 
results giving the number of parallels to the Synoptics and 
agrapha: 1 Thess. 63, 8; 2 Thess. 25, 1; 1 Cor, 214, 21; 2 Cor. 
99, 9; Gal. 88, 11; Rom. 270, 35; Col. 81, 4; Eph. 127, 14; 
Philemon 10, 0; Phil. 58, 4; Acts 61, 3; total 1096, 110. 

■'•^Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 138-140. 


26 (Mk, 14:22-25; Mt . 26:26-29; Lk . 22:14-20); 1 Cor. 14:37; and 
1 Thess. 4:15-17.18 

With regard to other NT liter-ature only one citation of a 
saying of Jesus is found (Acts 20:3v5), whereas allusions to the 
gospel tradition are frequently discerned. Selwyn believes that 
verba Christd lie just below the surface of the text of 1 
Peter. 1^ Chase discovers twenty-six parallels between 1 Peter and 
the Synoptic gospels and concludes that "his mind was saturated 
with the words of Christ. "20 Admittedly, this list is con- 
siderably too lengthy, but at least twelve deliberate allusions 
to the sayings of Jesus should be recognized in 1 Peter. ^-^ Fur- 
thermore, Davies discovers ten echoes of the words of Jesus in 1 
John,-^'- and Vos convincingly locates twenty-five diverse sayings 
of Jesus in the book of Revelation , 23 Therefore throuahout the 

-'■^Allison, "Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels," 2. 

•^- ^ S e 1 wy n , Firs t Pet er , 366, 

'"-'F.H, Chase, "Peter, First Epistle," A D i ctio nary of the 
Bibl_e III: 787-788. Gerhar-d Maier, " Jesustradition im i Petrus- 
brlef?" Gospel Perspect ives , 5: 127-128 includes more than 30 
possible allusions. 

"■■^Grouped according to source: 1 Pet. 5;2-4=Lk, 12:32; 
l:4=Lk. 12:33; l:13=Lk. 12:35; 4:10f==Lk. 12:42. 1 Pet. 4:14=Lk. 
6:22; Mt . 5:11; 3:16=Lk. 6:38; 2;19f=Lk. 6:32f; 3:14=Mt. 5:10; 
2:12b==Mt, 5:16b. 1 Pet. l:18f=:Mk. 10:45; 5:6=Lk. 14:11; 18:14; 
Mt. 23:12; 5 : 7=Mt . 6:25. 

^^Davies, S_e 1 1 ijig; , 412. 

23 Louis A. Vos, The___SYrx)j3tij:: _Tr_aditions_ J^n^ 
lYpse , 218-219. Rev. 1:3 a'= Lk . " fi ;' 2 8 7" "l : 3 b= Lk . "'21:8; 1 :' 7 ==Mt . 
24:'30; 2:7,ll=Mt. 13:9; (Mk. 4:23); Lk . 8:8; 3:2f and (16:15)=Mt. 
24:42,43; ( Mk . 13:35; Lk, 12:37); 12:39; 3:5c = Mt. 10:32; Lk . 
12:8; 3:20=Mt. 24:33; ( Mk . 13:29); Lk . 12:36; 3:21=(Mt. 19:28); 
Lk. 22:28f; 6 : 4=Mt . 10:34; (Lk. 12:51); 6:16=^Lk. 23:30; ch , 6=Mt , 
24 par. (cf. Vos, 186); ll:2b==Lk. 21:24; 11:3, 6=Lk. 4:25; 13:9 = 
(Mt, 13:9); Mk . 4:23; ( Lk . 8:8); 13:10=Mt. 26:52b; 13:11, 13=Mt. 
7:15; 24:24; Mk , 13:22; 14:4b=(Mt. 8:19; Lk. 9:57); 14;6=Mt. 
24:14; (Mk, 13:10); 14:14-19=Mt. 26:64; (24:29-31); 13:24-43; 
(Mk. 14:62; 13:26f; Lk , 21:25f); 17:4b=Mt. 23:25; ( Lk . 11:39); 
18:4=Mt. 24:15ff; (Mk. 13;14ff); 18:21=(Mt. 18:6; Mk , 9:42); Lk , 
17:2; lS:24=Mt. 23:35; ( Lk . 11:50); 19:6ff=(Mt. 9:14-17); 22:1- 
13; 25:1-13; 22:14; ( Mk . 2:18-22; Lk . 5:33-39); 22:12=Mt. 16:27. 
( ) indicates parallel passages with less similarity. 


docujnents of the NT we encounter the identical phenomenon of the 
dominance of allusions to the sayings of Jesus. In fact there 
are as many allusions in a. late book such as the Apocalypse as in 
a presumably early epistle sxich as James. Thus Kittel's hypoth- 
esis that the presence of allusions is an indication of an early 
stage in the transmission of the sayings of Jesus cannot be 
su.stained with regard to NT literature. 

In the literature of the Apostolic Fathers we detect an 
identical predominance of allusions even though authors like Kit- 
tel and Aland differ dramatically about specific statistics. 
Moreover, with the exception of 2 Clement24 ,^q encounter an 
unexpected low proportion of citations, roughly comparable to 
that of Paul. Kittel argued that a substantially greater use of 
allusions occurred in the earliest days of the transmission of 
the Jesus-tradition, while the number of citations continually 
increased. This hypothesis, as indicated by the data above, can- 
not be substantiated. Furthermore, if Kittel's exaggerated list 
is reduced, the frequency of allusions is more in harmony with 
the literature of the Apostolic Fathers than in contrast with it. 
Therefore, a more valid conclusion would be that the employment 
of allusions without foi-mulae cltandi remained popular in the 

24in 2 Clement references both to the OT (6:8; 14:1; 
14:2) and the Synoptic gospels {2:4} are prefixed with the term 
ypa(l>r) . Likewise, the Introductory formula Aeye t. (present tense), 
never employed elsewhere in the Apostolic Fathers to refer to the 
NT writings (with the possible exception of Barn. 6:13), is 
applied to both the OT (3:5; 11:2; 13:2; 15:3) and the NT (3:2; 
4:2; 5:2; 6:1; 8:5; 13:4). These facts indicate the late date of 
2 Clement whose references to the Jesus-tradition fit better with 
Justin Martyr than with the rest of the Apostolic Fathers. 


Christian church from the very beginning. The employment of 
citations also continued throughout this period, especially when 
the authority of Jesxis was appealed to in order to add sig- 
nificant weight to the author's argument. The sayings of Jesus 
are finally cited as scripture with the emergence of the Mar- 
cionlte heresy and the writings of Justin Martyr, 25 Although 
there was a gradual increase in the use of introductory for- 
mulations as the written gospels began to be utilized, no clear 
■stages of transmission of the sayings of Jesus can be sub- 

Aland has offered the most thorough rebuttal of Kittel's 
views by attempting to counter his suggestions concerning author- 
ship, date, place of origin, and the use of the sayings of Jesus. 
Regarding background questions Aland attempts to demonstrate that 
the eschato logical expectations,, the presumed social situation, 
the theology of faith and works,- and the lack of ritualism in the 
author's concept of law coincide with the writings of 1 Clement 
and the Shepherd of Hermas equally as well as with the historical 
data we know of the person of James and an early date near the 
Apostolic Council. 26 Concerning the use of sayings of Jesus 
Aland turns Kittel against himself. Since Kittel had admitted 
that many of James' allusions to the Synoptic tradition cannot 
individually stand on their own feet, Aland wonders how a whole 

2-^Cf. James M. Robinson, "From Quotation Formula to Col- 
lection of Sayings," Trajectories Through Early Christianity , 99- 

100, ~ " ' ~ 

^^Kittel counters Aland's arguments in "Jakobus und 
Apostolischen Vater," 109-112. 


theory of stages in the transmission of the sayings of Jesus can 
be; built upon such an insecure foundation. 27 

Lohse likewise counters Kittel's claim abou.t the greater 
frequency of allusions in the Epistle of James but progresses a 
step further than Aland by offering a counter hypothesis to that 
of Kittel. Within each of the stages which Kittel had proposed 
Lohse notices that the allusions occur within paraenetic sec- 
tions, i.e. in most parts of James, within the Pauline corpus at 
1 Thess . 5 and Rom. 12-14, and in the Two Ways section of the 
Didache. Although Kittel had argued that the similar use of 
allusions in James and the Didache stemmed from the older Pales- 
tinian material present in the Two Ways, 28 recent studies have 
shown that the section most saturated with allusions to the 
Jesus- tradition , Did. 1:3-2:1, is a later addition. 29 Thus 
Lohse ' s thesis of a common genre of paraenesis^^ accounts more 
adequately for the accumulation of allusions at Did. 1:3-2:1 as 
well as the close resemblance to the Serro.on on the Mount in both 
documents. 31 Furthermore, the eschatology in James is not in the 

2 •'Aland, "Herrenbruder Jakobus , " 103 quotes Kittel, "Der 
geschichtliche Ort," 90. 

28Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort," 93. 

29cf. Cyril C. Richardson, "The Teaching of the Twelve 
Apostles, Commonly Called the Didache," Early Christian Fathers, 
I: 165. The discovery of a Latin document {Doctrina apostolorum) 
consisting of Did. 1-6 without 1:3-2:1 gave considerable weight 
to this argument . 

^Ohohse, "Glaube und Werke," 10-11. 

"^-'■Did. 1:3-2:1 consistently alludes to the Sermon on the 
Mount except at 1:2 where the love comm.and (also common in 
paraenetic literature at Rom. 13:9; Gal, 5:14; Jas. 2:8) of Mt . 
22:37-39 par, is mentioned. All of James' deliberate allusions 
except Jas, 4:10 find their home in the sermon. The Sermon on 
the Mount is itself an accumulation of paraenetic teaching 
material grouped together by catchwords. 


first place concerned with the immediacy of the parousia as Kit- 
tel contends but with an attitude of patient waiting (5:7ff}. 
Likewise Did. 16 emphasizes the moral qualities present in the 
life of the catechumen, in this case watchfulness. Thus a recog- 
nition of the role that the genre of paraenesis plays in the 
quoting of sources is essential in explaining the phenomenon of 
allusions in the transmission of the sayings of Jesus according 
to Lohse . 

2.3 The history of the transmission of dominical sayings can 
be described in three ways: 1) as a series of stages; 2) as a 
settled, fixed tradition from the very beginning; or 3) as a 
fluid, flexible phenomenon where individual authors apply the 
logia to diverse and multiform contexts. To demonstrate further 
that the transmission history does not consist in a series of 
three stages as Kittel suggested, we will now investigate the 
remaining alternatives. Some posit an alternative two stage 
approach which distinguishes an early oral stage from a later 
standardized period when the sayings became stereotyped through 
the influence of the written gospels. The Epistle of James would 
belong to the former stage with the explanation for the form of 
the sayings being James' memory of the oral tradition if not the 
preaching of Jesus itself. 3^ 

The postulation of an oral fluid stage followed by a 
written fixed era rests upon the false presupposition that the 
sayings of Jesus were already standardized at the time of the 

3^Cf. Randall, , J §nve_s _a n d_ jJu daJ^ , 68; Leonard 

E. Elliott-Binns, Galilean Christianity: Studies in Biblical 
T h e o lo^Y ' 47. 


Apostolic Fathers, Koester demonstrates that even after the 
written gospels had appeared, the sayings of Jesus were not 
always transmitted in this standardized form. 33 
writing from the gospels from a free tradition 

1 Clement - 13:2; 46:8 

Ignat ins Smyr . 1:1 Eph . 5:2; 6:1; 14:2; 17:2; 

19:2; Trail, 11:1; Phld.3:l; 
Smyr. 3:2f; Pol. 2:1; 2:2 

2 Clement 2:4; 3:2; 4:2,5; 5:2-4; 4:5; 5:2ff; 8:5; 12:2 

6:1,2; 9:11; 13:4 

Pol. Phil. 2:3; 7:2; 12:3 2:3 

Barnabas - 5:8f,ll; 12:10ff; 21:2 

Didache 1:3,4,5; 9:5?; 15:3? ■1:2a, 5; 8:1,2; 9:5; ll:4f,7; 

13: If; 14:2; 16:1,3-8 

Shepherd - Vis. 4,2,6; Mand. 4,1,6; 

of Hermas Sim. 9,20,2f; 9,29,3; 9,31,2 

These results indicate that the citing of the sayings of Jesus in 
a free, flexible manner remained popular in the church's life. 
The context and the author's peculiar emphasis control the word- 
ing of the allusion as much as the standard inherited terminology 
found in the written gospels. As Wright explains. 

The presumption that with the increasing authoritative 
definition of the canon of the New Testament there arose a 
corresponding reverence for the ipsjssjma verba of the new 
sacred corpus, at least with reference to patristic treatment 
of this text, will be seen to require some revision. >34 

Therefore, postulating a temporary stage where memory dominated 

the citing of Jesus' words does not adequately account for the 

form in which these sayings were transmitted. We must search 

elsewhere for a more convincing solution. 

2.4 Scandinavian scholars have emphasized the fixed, static 

nature of the history of the transmission of the sayings of 

^^Koster, Sy nj3£t_is_che tjjoer IJ^ef^er uri^ , 2 59-260. 
^'^Leon Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as 
£uoted_i_n the Literature of the Second Century , 8 , 


Jesus . Gerhardsson insists that early Christian development is 

more comparable to the Pharisaic-Rabbinic tradition than that 

described by modern critical scholars. 

The form-critics regarded the process of tradition as being 
one of gradual solidification, of a hitherto plastic body of 
material. The final phase in this process, the actual trans- 
fer from memory to manuscript, they called the redaction- 
history of the material. This scheme cannot be applied to 
the Pharisaic-Rabbinic Tradition, Here the basic material 
always had a '"fixed' form, being transmitted as memorized 
texts , 35 

Gerhardsson appeals especially to the role of memory in the 

ancient Near East. He points out that the Western art of 

reproducing another's statements in one's own vocabulary and of 

abstracting ideas and theories from these words was not practiced 

in ancient Israel. -^^ No attempt was made to give a synopsis of 

the views of the old masters; instead the ipsissima verba of each 

authority remained unaltered. Likewise, Riesenfeld notes that 

the ideal Semitic pupil never lost one iota of the tradition 

being passed on.-^'^ Thus the tireless Rabbi Perida was regarded as 

exemplary since he would repeat every passage four hundred times 

for slow learner.s.38 Based upon these Jewish precedents, it is 

reasonable to suppose that the Christian catechumen had to 

memorize a number of important OT texts, sayings of Jesus, and 

summaries of apostolic doctrine, 39 This is substantiated by the 

^^Birger Gerhardsson, Tradition and Transmission in Early 
Christian i ty , 38. 

^^irger Gerhardsson, Memory and M anji §, c r _i p_t : .Oral Tr;a_di.- 
ii-SH ^nd Wr i,jtt,en Transm_iss_ion. in Rabbinic Judaism and Early 
Christianity , 130-131. 

3'^Riesenfeld, Gospel Tradition and Beginnings , 18. He 
admits, however, that even the Oriental mind was not a tape 
recorder . 

^^Gerhardsson , Memory and Manuscript, 134-135, 

^^Cf, Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of th e New Testament , 
87, n. 1; Gerhardsson, Memory and llajmscr ipt , 203. 


memory technique utilized by Irenaeus^O gjid the description of 
Peter's recollection process found in the Pseudo-Clementine 
E§JS.2SBJrSA9Ii^ (2,1,5).'*1 According to the Scandinavian school this 
evidence establishes a continuity between the apostolic and post- 
apostolic traditions, which in turn entails a fixed "Holy Word" 
rather than stages or a fluid transmission of Jesus' sayings. 

Besides recalling the Semitic desire for an exact, oral 
transmission, Gerhardsson also points to the important role that 
tradition played in Judaism and the early church. Imitation of 
teachers and reliance on authorities were values which the church 
took over from Judaism, The care and exactness with which the 
Masoretic recension of the OT text was preserved proves the 
reverence afforded to a source of authority. Gerhardsson finds 
this same reverence for the words of Jesus and the apostles in 
the early church. '^2 since the apostles were continually with the 
Lord from the time of John the Baptizer (Acts 1:21-22), they pos- 
sessed the necessary knowledge to correctly preserve, transmit, 

^'-'irenaeus (HE 5:20) explains how he memorized Polycarp's 
conversations about John and the others who had seen the Lord, 
Cf . Davies, Setting, 468 and Gerhardsson, Memorx a-Jld_Manuscri£t , 
204. "' 

^^"I have adopted the habit of recalling in my memory the 
words of my Lord which I heard from himself, and because of my 
longing for them I force my mind and my thoughts to be roused, so 
that, awaking to them, and recalling and repeating each one of 
them, I may keep them in memory." Cf. Davies, Setting, 468; Ger- 
hardsson, Memory and Manuscript , 2 07. 

^^Ee refers to Papias who explains, "And then whenever 
someone came who (as a disciple) had accompanied the elders, I 
used to search for the words of the elders: what Andrew or what 
Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or what James or 
what John or what Matthew or any other disciple of the Lord, or 
what Aristion or what John the Elder, the disciples of the Lord 
ss-Y-" Patrum Apostolicorum O pera , 70 cited in Davis, Se_tt_irig_, 
467-468 and Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript , 206, 


3.nd apply this "Holy Word". The two NT terms rrapaAaupAycj and 

Tiapad tdwfj c specifically express this truth, Paul transmitted the 

Christian tradition {irapaSoo-iQ 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor, 11:2); 

he delivered it (Trapad idwp i 1 Cor, 11:2,23; 15:3), and it*^^ was 

therefore received (7TapaAap.pd.yu 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1,3; Gal. 1:9; 

Phil. 4:9; Col. 2:6; 1 Thess . 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess . 3:6). Ger- 

hardsson and his Scandinavian colleagues contend that this double 

emphasis upon precise memorization and authoritative tradition 

necessitates that a fixed transmission of the sayings of Jesus' 

must be assumed. 

2.5 Most scholars demand that the work of Gerhardsson and 

Riesenfeld must be qualified. Allison's response is typical: 

But, although many of their emphases are salutary, the 
gospels do not permit the thesis that the tradition was fixed 
as was the later Mishnah, The editorial activity of the 
evangelists, even if today often exaggerated, puts this 
beyond all doubt. Further, the freedom of the reda.ctional 
level cannot be radically discontiguous with the oral stage, 
which implies for that period also some degree of fluidity. ^4 

When the fathers of the church quote a passage more than once, 
divergent forms are regularly employed, Metzger states that 
"Origen is notorious in this regard, for he seldom quotes a pas- 
sage twice in precisely the same words, '"*5 ^j^g frequent occur- 
rence of deviations from the Biblical record likewise offers evi- 

^^The objects of napaKaiipauu) in Paul's writings include 
"the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9), "the word of the message 
... the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13), "the things which were 
learned, heard, and seen" (Phil, 4:9), "the tradition" (2 Thess. 
3:4), and "Christ" (Col. 2:6). 

'^'^Allison, "Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels," 23. 
Of. Davies, Setting, 468-469 who argues that a struggle with 
Gnosticism would not have been credible if the tradition was not 
somewhat ambiguous. 

^^Metzger, Text , 87. 


dence for a fluid tradition. Gildersleeve remarks of Justin 
Martyr, "Suffice it to say that Justin's citations from the 
Memoirs of the Apostles do not tally exactly, save in a few 
instances, with the parallel passages in our Gospels,'"*^' It is 
striking that Lk, 6:36 (ytyeaQe o ikt ippoyec;) is cited in six dif- 
ferent formats in later Greek writings: 

ytueaOe ayaOoL Epiph., Adv- 1.§£I!- 66,2 2,4 

yiueaBe ayaeol kqc xPncrxoi Macarius of Egypt, Honi_^ 19:2; 

JDe Custod i a Cor_d_is 13 

ytvecjde dya0ol Kai oIkt tpjaovet; Pseudo-Clementine Hom_.ijl._ies 3:57 

y'iueaee OLKZipjJOvec, kql ayaQoL Ps.-Athan., 2uaes_t, ad Ant, 89 

yLueade xpricjxol kol oiKXippovec; Just., l_,Ap..ol. 15:13 

yiueaee eAetip.ouec, Kai oiKxipiJoueQ CI. Alex., s£rom. 2,100,4 

Moreover, the textual tradition of the NT, especially within the 
Western text type, displays a freedom which does not harmonize 
with a strict interpretation of what a "fixed tradition" 
implies.'*'^ We must, therefore, assume that the classical authors' 
manner of quotation also influenced Christian writers. There 
"one finds a deliberate freedom in quoting, a kind of poetic 
license which seems to have been the sign of mastery in the 
treatment of the mater ial . "-^^ Thus we encounter additional 
motivations in the transmitting of the gospel tradition beyond 
that of maintaining a fixed tradition. Specific examples of the 
adaptation of a saying to new contexts, harmonizations, explana- 
tory additions, stylistic changes, dogmatic or apologetic altera- 
tions, changes to fit a new audience, liturgical modifications. 

^^Basil L, Gildersleeve, 'Ih^_h:R9AS>3A.^§^.Sli„A33J^Al}:^M3£XlI. > 


■* 'Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 201 explains this 
phenoro.enon by the fact "that private copyists were employed whose 
precision could not compete with Jewish Scripture specialists. 

^^Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use 
of the Old Testament, 157. 


and literary improvements^S force one to conclude that a fixed, 
static transmission of the sayings of Jesus without variation is' 

In more recent publications Gerhardsson appears to have 
modified his position somewhat, admitting that several Synoptic 
texts have been treated with "artistic freedom" by later inter- 
preters. ^^0 jj^j fact already in his earlier work he distinguishes 
between, transmitting allusions to the sayings of Jesus and 
employing logia of the Jesus-tradition. When a saying is only 
alluded to, then there is no direct quotation in the strict 
of the word, but only a freely reproduced wording adapted in some 
way to the context. ^^ Thus Gerhardsson too is close to acknowl- 
edging the truth of two seemingly mutually exclusive considera- 
tions in the history of the transmission of verba Christ! , At 
the samve time as one encounters a demonstrably lax method of 
quotation, there is still a high degree of authority and priority 
accorded to the words of Jesus in the Christian community. The 
holding together of these two conclusions speaks against those 
who accept a fluid view of the tradition which allows the church 
to create "sayings of Jesus", to project utterances of the early 
prophets back into the life of Jesus, and to assign wisdom 
sayings and folk legends from various traditions to the author- 
ship of Jesus by inserting his name in place of the traditional 
subject. If we conclude that the tradition was at the same time 

"^^Cf . Dean B. Deppe , T^e S§.YJ:n3.§, of iZs§us in the Ep_lstl_e 
£.1. J.§JM-§' PP • 176-177, n, 65-74 for a multitude of exam.ples. 

^^Birger Gerhardsson, The Origins of the Gospel Tradi - 
tions, 87-89. 

^-'■Gerhardsson, Memor_y and Manuscript , 198. 


fluid and authoritative, then it is possible to contend that the 

traditions have been marked by the milieu through which they have 

passed without accepting the claim that they were £rea_te_d by the 

secondary milieu. The tradition was surely rooted in Jesus' 

words, yet this fcict did not create a legalism, which prohibited 

these sayings from being adapted to fit various new situations 

and the peculiar emphases of different authors. As Schweizer 

states, "The community had no sacred texts in the sense of ones 

that had to be repeated without the slightest change. "^2 .j.j^g 

authority of the words was not established by an exact verbal 

repetition of the sayings but in the putting into practice of the 

lifestyle and faith commitment demanded by these words through 

the inspired presence of the Holy Spirit. By accepting the fluid 

nature of this transmission process, we reject a theory of stages 

to explain the form of the sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of 

James and turn to a second solution, one already hinted at in our 

discussion of Lohse ' s critique of Kittel, 

3.0 The Genre Paraenesis as the Explanation for the Form 
of the Sayings of Jesus in the Epistle of James 

James is peculiar among NT epistles in that it does not 
regularly employ the familiar language of the kerygma-^-^ Mor do 
we encounter theological instruction about the death and resur- 
rection of Jesus to ground the Christian community in the funda- 
mentals of faith and conduct. For these reasons the Christian 
character of the Epistle of James is sometimes even questioned, ^4 

^^schweitzer , M atthew , 147. 

^•^Except for 1:17-18, 21b. Of. ch . 7, section 2.2 

^^Cf . ch, 1, section 3.4, 


Instead we observe purely ethical exhortations of practical wis- 
dom with no immediately apparent theological or Christological 
undergirding . '"^S xhe abundance of ethical exhortations has led 
scholars since Dibelius to describe the genre of James by the 
term par-aenesis (transliterated from the Greek word rrapatueaLc, , 
meaning exhor tat ion ) . ^^ Since paraenesis in its simplest form 
consists of imperatival sentences and 54 imperatives occur in the 
108 verses of the Epistle of James, this appears to be an 
appropriate title, Lohse^'^ uses the genre of paraenesis to 
explain James' prevalent employment of allusions to the sayings 
of Jesus without an introductory formula. He contends that an 
identical situation is encountered in the paraenetic sections of 
Paul and the Didache. Could the use of a particular genre, 
therefore, explain the form in which the sayings of Jesus are 
transmitted in the Epistle of James? In. order to answer this 
question, we will examine the various suggestions concerning the 
genre of James and attempt to discern which hypothesis coincides 
most accurately with the exegetical data. 

3.1 As will become evident, the particular genre employed by 
James has been widely disputed. The dominant theory throughout 
church history, which has formed the very vocabulary with which 
we converse about the book, is the supposition that James is an 

^^Harold S. Songer , "The Literary Character of the Book 
of James," REx 66(1969): 382 says, "James does not spell out the 
theological foundations on which his ethical demands are made." 

^®In the NT it occurs only as a verb at Acts 27:9,22; Lk . 

^'^Lohse, "Glaube und Werke," 9-11. 

epistle. 58 r^j^^ main argument in favor of this traditional opinion 
is the acknowledged fact that the book is introduced, as a letter: 
"From James, a servant of God ... to the Twelve Tribes dispersed 
throughout the world" (1:1 NEB). However, Jas. 1:1 can be "fully 
accounted for by the literary custom of the time v^ithout the 
necessity of supposing either a real epistolary aim on the part 
of the author or the addition by a later and inept hand of an 
alien epistolary preface, "5^ Just as the book of Hebrews appears 
to be a series of homilies or exhortations (A6y-ou xtjc, TiapaKAncreuc; 
Heb. 13:22; Acts 13:15; 15:32) attached together and circulated 
as a short epistle (dia jSpaxecjv eTreaxetAa 13:22), so James could 
be a grouping of ethical exhortations by a recognized teacher 
(Jas. 3:1) merely published in the form of a letter. 6'-' Consider 
the Apocalypse which is given an epistolary form (Rev, 1:4-7), 2 
Clement which is a homily but categorized as a letter in the 
early church (Eus., HE 3,38,4), the Epistle of Jeremiah which, is 
really a tract against idolatry, the epistles of Enoch (1 En. 92- 

^"Citing examples from 1 Corinthians, Adamson, J.amS§J_.-M.§S; 
and Message, 97 entitles James a pastoral epistle, but pastoral 
epistles either deal with specific problems like 1 Corinthians or 
as evidenced by Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus and 
Ignatius' epistle to Polycarp, 1) are written to individuals; 2) 
mention duties in connection with church office; 3) address 
groups in the church as in the Haustafeln (1 Tim. 2:1-3:13; 5:1- 
6:2; Tit. 1 : 6~9 ; 2:1-3:2; Ig. Pol. 4:1-6:1); 4) include personal 
items (1 Tim, 1:12-14,18; 2:7; 3:15; 5:23; 6:12; 2 Tim. 1:4-6, IS- 
IS; 2:8-9; 3:11,15; 4:9-21; Tit. 1:5; 3:12-13; Ig. Pol. 7-8); and 
5) warn against heresy (1 Tim, 1:3-4,6-7,19-20; 4:1-7; 6:3-5,20; 
2 Tim, 2:17-19; 3:1-9; Tit. 1:10-16; 3:9-11), elements missing in 
the book of James. 

^^Ropes, James , 9-10. 

^'^Richard Bauckham, "Pseudo-Apostolic Letters," JBL 107 
(1988) : 473 states, "The fact that only a letter opening is 
required to make a letter a letter means that a letter could 
easily be written that also belonged to another literary genre." 


105), Baruch (2 Bar. 78-87), and 2 Peter which are really testa- 
ments, and the Apocryphon of James and Epistle of the Apostles 
which belong to the very popular second and third century genre 
of postresurrection dialogues between Christ and the disciples. 
Outside Jas. 1:1 this document has little to recommend it as an 
epistle, especially with the omission of a typical epistolary- 
conclusion and the impersonal and general manner in which James 
describes his audience. ^^ 

Francis, however, has attempted to prove that James is an 
epistle "from start to finish". He contends that "the inconver- 
tibility of the epistolary use of paKaptot; in James and the 
epistolary euAoynxoc; in other letters" establishes the fact that 
James begins with a thanksgiving section like the Pauline 
epistles. ^2 j^ jg further pointed out that many Hellenistic let- 
ters have no closing formulas and often conclude with the themes 
of eschatology (Jas. 5:7-11), oath formulas (Jas, 5:12), and 
prayer (Jas, 5:13-18),^^ This argum.ent would be convincing if it 
were not for the fact that catechetically oriented parse rn-:;s is 

^•^Cf. Stowers, Letter Writing in Antiquity , 2 0-22 an d 
William. G. Doty, Letter s i n Primitive Christianity , 11-12 for the 
characteristic features of an epistle. 

^^Francis, "Opening and Closing Paragraphs," 115-116. In 
our opinion, Jas. 1:12 should not be seen as part of the opening 
to an epistle, and the blessing statements in James find their 
background in wisdom literature rather than epistolary introduc- 
tions . 

63cf. F.X.J. Exler, The Form of the An£.i.§,Ilt GjLeefe L.eti.§I!2, 
h SJ;udY In Greek Epistolography , 127-132; Francis, "Opening and 
Closing Paragraphs," 125; Hartin, James and Q, 32-33; Davids, 
James, 25-26. Hartin wrongly perceives an interconnection of 
themes between the introduction and conclusion with 5:9 refering 
back to 1:19, 5:10 to 1:12, 5:13-18 to 1:5-6, and 5:19 to 1:16 
although an inclusio on the theme of patience (1:2-4; 5:7-8) is 
arguable . 


also habitually embraces eschatological sections advocating some 
moral virtue (Jas, S.-S-ll patience; Rom. 13:11-14 decency.- 1 
Thess , 4:13-18 encouragement; 1 Thess. 5:1-12 sobriety; Did. 16 
watchfulness) as well as a section with church order themes such 
as prayer, confession of sins, and the functions of leaders.®* 
Therefore, probably the best solution is to regard James as a 
paraenetic epistle. ^5 

3,2 Others have claimed that James is a homily^^ or a series 
of homiletic-didact ic discourses. Elliot-Blnns contends that 
Jas, 1:1 was added to turn a homily into an epistle. ^"^ Shepherd 
divides the material into eight homiletic-didactic discourses, 
while Meyer' perceives twelve short homilies based allegor ically 
upon the twelve patriarchs, ^8 Wessel believes that the writing 
was originally a synagogue sermon^^ since James addresses his 
audience as brethren and proceeds to teach the ethical applica- 
tions of the Christian faith. The problem with this suggestion 
is the unfulfilled expectation that the name of Christ would be 

^■^Of. ch . 3, section 6.0 for examples from Did. 7-15. In 
the catechetical sections of 1 Peter we also perceive the them,es 
of eschatology (4:7), prayer (4:7), forgiveness of sins (4:8), 
counsel for times of suffering (4:12-19), and the mention of the 
tasks of elders (v5:l-4) in a somewhat similar fashion to Jas, 
5: 7-20. 

®^In distinction from pastoral epistles which deal with 
problem solving, informative epistles which provide cor- 
respondence, pedagogical epi-stles which teach (religious) con- 
cepts, apologetic epistles which offer a. defense, and epideictic 
epistles which give praise and blame. 

®^For authors who support this position see Adamson, 

^"siliott-Binns , Galilean Christianity, 47f 

James: Man and Message, 94, n. 44 

^.^ ^. .^^__.__^_™ 

^^Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 41-42; Meyer, Ratsel, 

^"w.W. Wessel, An Inquiry into the Origin, Literary 
Character, Historical an d Religious Significance of the Epistle 
of James, 73-89. Cf. Davids, James, 12. 


fi'-equently mentioned in a sermon or at least the kerygma recited, 
neither which is characteristic of James, '^^ Furthermore, there is 
no clear unifying theme to indicate that a single homily is in 
view.-'-^ Finally, there is no evidence of oral address , '^^ the 
application of scripture passages, "^^ qj. ^|^g ,jgg ^f hortatory sec- 
tions beginning with the cohortative "let us" as in other 
homilies of this tirae,'^^ 

3,3 The Hellenistic secular alternative to the homily Is the 
diatribe. Ropes' in particular promotes the thesis that the 
diatribe "serves to explain much, both of the form and the con- 
tent, of the Epistle of James. ""^^ Some of the more characteristic 
traits of a diatribe include .-"^^ 
A, Certain formal means of recognition: 

1) the use of dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor or a 
hypothetical opponent (2:18f; 5:13f) often introduced by d AA ' 
epeZ TiQ, dAA ' epovi'xat , epovvx' hv npiSg , or simply $rja(; 

2) objections are anticipated and answered (2:8,14); 

"^^Cf. 2 CI. 1:1; Melito, P e rJ^_P a sch a , 4-5,100-105; and 
the manner in which the homilies in Hebrews interpret the person 
and work of Christ. James only mentions Jesus Christ twice (1:1; 
2:1) and the kerygma is almost absent (1:18,21), 

'^•^Adamson, J § me_s i_Man _a^^ 95 contends that the 

theme of the homily is "faith without works is dead", but this is 
limited to Jas . 2:14--26, Cf, above, ch. 3, section 1.3. 

"^^cf, 2 CI. 17:3; 19:1; Heb , 2:1,5; 5:11; 6:9; Melito, 
Peri Pasc ha 46. 

"^f. 2 CI. 2; 12; Heb, 2:6-8; 3:7-11; 5:6; 8:8-12; 10:5- 
7; 10:37-38; Melito, Peri Pasc ha 1. We have refuted Shepherd's 
claim that James contains a central gnomic saying in each of his 
discourses in ch, 4, section 1,2. 

"^•^Cf. 2 CI. 4:1; 5:1; 7:1; 8:1; 10:1; 11:1; 12:1; 13:1; 
16:1; 17:1; 18:1; Heb, 2:1; 4:1,11,14; 6:1; 10:22,23; 12:1,28. 

"^Ropes, J,ames, 12. 

'^^These traits are gleaned from Ropes, James, 12ff; Stan- 
ley K, Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul ' s Letter "to the Romans; and 
Albert Wifstrand, "Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James 
and Peter," STh 1(1948): 170-182. 


3) the presence of rhetorical questions (2:4-7,14-16,21,25; 
3 : 11-12 ; 4:1, 4-5) ; 

4) a row of short parallel questions and answers (5:13), • 

5) statements commencing with a paradox (1:2) and incorporat- 
ing yet other paradoxes (1:10; 2:5) as '/■jell as serious irony 
(2 : 14-19; 5: 1-6) ; 

6) numerous imperatives (54 in 108 verses) which are often 
ironical (5:1; perhaps 4:9); 

7) harsh addresses to the audience (2:20; 4:4,8); 

8) certain familiar formulas such as p.n nAauaaOe (1:16), 
O^Xeic, 6€ yuuuai (2:20), pAerre iQ (2:22), opate (2:24), laze 
(1:19), xi 6(peAoc, (2:14,16), ov xpn to introduce a conclusion 
(3:10), c5i6 Aeye L with a quotation (4:6), and idou (3:4,5; 
5:4,7,9,11) ; 

9) The form of the diatribe and the way it functions presup- 
poses a, student-teacher re>lationship (3:1), 

B. Characteristics of content: 

1) the apostrophizing of people (the merchants and the rich 
4: 13-5:6) ; 

2) references to already known phenomena by appealing to 
analogy (2:14-17), experience (3:5; 4:1-3), and comm.on sense 
(1:3; 3:1; 4:4); 

3) an abundance of conventional figures (rudder, bridle, 
forest fire 3:3-6; fig trees, grape vines, salt water 3:11- 

ti j ; 

4) the citation of historical examples who are well-known 
representatives of certain virtues (Abraham, Rahab, Job, 
Elijah in 2:21-23,25; 5:11,17 respectively). 

C. Contextual connections: 

1) no clear logical structure unifying the whole but only 
individual sections fitted together by certain key words 
{neipaaiidq, 1:2-14; AoyoQ 1:18-23; v6p.oc. eAevOepLaQ 1:25; 
2:12; xcfAtvayuyeZv yAiOcraav 1:26; 3:2; (JOipia 3:13-18; CnAoQ 
3:13-4:2; KpCveLv 4:11-12) and concluded by sharp antitheses 
(1:25; 2:13,26; 3:15-18; 4:12), questions (4:12; 5:6), quota- 
tions (5:20), or the expression od xpn (3:10); 

2) transitions made by the raising of an objection (2:8), a 
question (2:14; 3:13; 4:1; 5:13), or by &ye (4:13; 5:1). 

Yet Ropes himself admits that the Epistle of Jarnes 
embodies several striking divergencies from the style found in 
Greek diatribes: 

1} A greeiter seriousness and restraint of tone are evident in 
James; the bitter laugh and ridiculing abuse charactex^istic 
of a. diatribe are missing; 

2) A more intense and intimate tone is present in James; the 
Greek preacher addresses individuals (not "my brethren" as in 
James) and is not bonded by a relationship of love; 

3) The prohibition of oaths in Jas . 5:12 is in no way com- 
parable with the frequent oaths occurring in diatribes; 

4) The range of metaphors and Illustrations is noticeably 
narrowed in James' epistle. 

Wifstrand discovers additional elements in James which are not 
characteristic of a diatribe including: 1) James' greater fre- 
quency of imperatives; 2) the abundance of abstract substantives, 
especially nouns that denote certain qualities or mental condi- 
tions; 3) quotations from the OT ; and 4) Christian vocabulary, "^"^ 
But the decisive argument centers on the ingredients of the 
epistle itself. Rather than encountering Hellenistic Cynic and 
Stoic philosophy on the pages of this document, we confront 
Jewish-Christian religious and ethical teaching. "^^ It is only the 
specific discourses of James, i.e. those sections where a more 
logical and extensive structure is employed, that contain charac- 
teristics approaching those encountered in a diatribe. Three 
such extensive, thematic discourses have been identified (2:1-13; 
2:14-26; 4 : 1 ~ 1 ) , '^ ^ but the similarities of 4:1-10 with the 

'^'^Ropes accounts for this disparity by proposing that 
James is applying the specific genre of diatribe to his own expe- 
rience, background, and way of thinking. 

■^^Cf. Grosheide, JakpjDUs, 338-339. 

'^^Wilfred L. Knox, "The Epistle of St. James," JThS 
46(1945): 10-17; Blackman, James, 23; Hoppe, Hintergrund Jakobus- 
briefes, 9. 


catechetical material in 1 Pet. 5:5-10 as well as its contextual 
connection with the general paraenesis of Jas . 4:7-10 disqualify 
this pericope from being categorized as a diatribe. It is better 
to follow Dibelius' diagnosis and include the discourse on the 
tongue in 3:1-12 while eliminating 4:1-10.^0 j^^ ^j^y case, the 
description "diatribe" should not be used to characterize the 
entire writing as is done by Ropes and his followers. 
3.4 The Epistle of James exhibits a vital connection with 
wisdom literature as exemplified by the many parallels' of content 
with Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon, 81 Before settling upon a 
background in the genre of diatribe. Ropes surprisingly admits 
that with regard to the deeper roots of his thought Ja,nies dis- 
plays a closer kinship with Jewish wisdom literature than with 
Hellenistic diatribe. ^^^ Halson is a chief advocate of this posi- 
tion and maintains that the Epistle of James is "cast in the 
movild of the wisdom tradition as a conscious attempt to use a 
teaching form with Jewish antecedents yet with an -international 

"'^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 1 and Songer , "Literary 
Character of James," 385. Halson, "James: ""Christian Wisdom'?" 
309-310 accepts only 2:14-26 as diatribe. In 4:4-5 we encounter 
rhetorical questions as in sections sometimes described as 
diatribe (2:1-3:12 at 2:4,5,6,7,14,21,25; 3:11-12). James 
appears to slip into diatribe style in the middle of this section 
although the whole section (esp. 4:7-10) cannot be entitled 
diatribe. The rhetorical question at 4:1b is an answer to the 
question of 4:1a rather than a diatribe characteristic. 

^-'■Cf. ch. 2, section 4.1. Furthermore, the book of 
Proverbs is quoted at Jas. 4:6 and 5:20 and of the five most 
prevalent themes (righteous vs , wicked, wise vs. fool, the 
tongue, wealth and poverty, integrity) only the first one is not 
an emphasis of James. Hart in, James and Q, 42 calls James a 
"handbook of wisdom teachings." 

® ^Ropes , Jajne_s , 16. 


flavour' suitable for use in the Hellenistic world. "83 pjg points 

to:l) the similar vocabulary: of the NT hapax legomena situated 
in James, 34 (65%) appear in the wisdom books of the OT and 
the Apocrypha, 84 ^j^^j with regard to the 21 words in cojnmon 
with only one other NT writer, 19 (90!%') appear in wisdom lit- 
erature . °5 

2) the literary form-: this includes an abundance of isolated 
aphorisms, 36 ^ similar personal address (a wise man to his 
pupil, "my son" and a wisdom teacher to his flock, "my 
beloved brethren"), and a marked use of picturesque imagery 
(Jas. 1 :6b,10,23f ; 3:3-5; 5:7~8). 

3) the shared basic theme of p)ractical guidance for everyday 
godly living. 

In addition to these three main argximents one could also assert 
that the subject of wisdom itself is an undergirding theme in 
James' theology (1:5; 3:13-18). In fact James repeats several 
themes which are identical with the emphases of contemporary 
Jewish wisdom literature as exemplified in the Sentences of 
Pseudo-Phocylides : rich and poor (Jas, 1:9-11; 2:5-7; 5:1-6; 
Ps.-Phoc. 5,10,19,22,28,29,53,62,83,109,199) ,87 judging unjustly 
(Jas. 2:4; 4:11-12; Ps . -Phoc . 9), partiality (Jas, 2:1,9; Ps . - 
Phoc. 10), oaths (Jas. 5:12; Ps.-Phoc. 16-17), the tongue (Jas. 
1:26-27; 3:1-12; Ps . -Phoc . 20,124) mercy (Jas, 2:13; Ps , -Phoc . 

^■^Halson, "James: 'Christian Wisdom'?" 313. For other 
representatives of this opinion see Popkes , Adr essait en , S i tua- 
tion, Fo r m Jakobusbrief es , 23-27. 

"^"^25 (48%) from non-wisdom Apocryphal books; 18 (35%) 
from the prophets; 15 (29%) from the Pentateuch; 12 (23%) from 
the historical books; 9 [11%) from the Psalms. 

^^13 (62%) from non-wisdom Apocryphal books; 13 (62%) 
from the prophets; 8 (38%) from the Pentateuch; 8 (38%) from the 
historical books; 7 (33%) from the Psalms. The statistics are 
taken from Halson, "James: 'Christian Wisdom'?" 308-309. 

^^Halson, "James: 'Christian Wisdom'?" 311 identifies 23. 

""Especially warnings against economic injustice (Jas. 
2:6; 5 : 4=Ps . -Phoc , 5,10), pride in riches (1:10=53), and putting 
off meeting the needs of the poor (2:15-16=22) as well as the 
general convictions that riches will perish with you (5:2-3=110) 
and fighting and murder come from the lust for more (4:2-46). 


25-26), anger (Jas. 1:19-20; Ps . -Phoc . 57,63), the uncertainty of 
tomorrow (Jas. 4:13-14; Ps.-Phoc. 116), wisdom (Jas, 3:13-17; 
Ps.-Phoc. 129-131), and the decalogue (Jas. 2:11; Ps.-Phoc. 3-8). 
Finally, the sayings are loosely connected with a. minimum of 
mutual interconnection as is common in wisdom literature. We 
support those arguments above which affirm the importance of wis- 
dom literature in understanding the ethical exhortations of 
James, However, James is not poetry but prose throughout. Fur- 
thermore, paraenesis runs parallel with the OT wisdom tradition^S 
in that it is likewise concerned with practical instruction on 
the everyday affairs of the godly and, therefore, can account for 
the same phenomena that a connection with wisdom literature 
explains. The advantages for accepting paraenesis as the genre 
of James will now be enumerated, 

3.5 Since Dibelius' commentary an incre?ising number of Bibli- 
cal scholars are contending that the genre of paraenesis best 
accounts for the language, style, subject matter, and organiza- 
tion of the Epistle of James. 89 ^^ will now attejnpt to define the 

^°Cf . Ernst Baasland, "Der Jakobusbrief als neutestament- 
liche Weisheitsschrif t , " STh 36(1982): 135, n. 3, 

®®Supported by Blackmann, Hahn, Ktimmel, Lohse , MuBner , 
Schnackenberg, Schrage, Songer, Wanke , Windisch etc, Cf , ch. 1, 
section 3.5. For opposition to Dibelius' thesis see the discus- 
sion in Popkes, Adressaten, Situation, Form Jakobusbrief es, 12. 
Luke Johnson, "Friendship with the World / Friendship with God: A 
Study of Discipleship in James," Discipleship in the New ,Tsst_a- 
ISHi ' 1^'? contends that Dibelius has wrongly identified 
paraenesis as a genre since "it is better described as a mode of 
ethical teaching which can be fitted to many different literary 
genres" but John G. Gammie, "Paraenetic Literature: Toward the 
Morphology of a Secondary Genre," Seme i a 50:41-77 offers a more 
nuanced approach. The primary genres should be determined by the 
diversification of roles in society: 1) narrative personified in 
the story teller and scribe; 2) prophetic literature personified 
in the prophet and seer; 3) liturgical literature personified in 
the priest; 4) legal literature personified in the ruler and 
judge; and 5) instruction personified in the wise poet (wisdom 


various elements which make up paraenesis, and in doincj so, 
demonstrate its applicability in explaining the character of the 
book of James. 9^ 

1) Paraenesis consists of a fusion of eclectic material from 
diverse origins^l and, therefore, accounts for the multiform 
traditions which one encounters in James: OT allusions, wisdom 
sayings, popular maxims, sayings of Jesus, and ecclesiastical 
moral reflection, 

2) Paraenesis is composed primarily, although not exclusively, of 
traditional and unoriginal material. 92 This helps explain why the 
background questions pertinent to our epistle are so difficult to 
answer . 

3) Paraenesis is addressed to those who have already known or 
heard such things before, '-'3 Hearing-forgetting and knowing-doing 
are therefore important topics of discussion, and precisely these 
theses frequently surface in the Epistle of James (1:19-27; 2:14- 
26; 4 : 13-17) . 

literature), philosopher (philosophical literature), teacher 
(paraenetic literature), and pastor-elder (epistolary litera- 

^^Corabining most of the following elements into one 
definition we could say that paraenesis consists of an eclectic 
conglomeration of admonitions loosely strung together without a 
theological substructure whose purpose is the transmission of 
traditional material of universal applicability for the 
socialization of the audience, 

^^Hahn, "Begrtindung ur chr ist 1 icher Paranese," ZNPf 
72(1981); 89; Dibelius and Greeven, James, 24; Songer, "Literary 
Character of James," 385-386. 

^^Leo G. Perdue, "Paraenesis and the Epistle of James," 
ZNW 72(1981): 241; Dibelius and Greeven, James, 21; Kamlah, Form 

der katalogischen Paranese, 1. 

„ — . ..^^.^ — . — ___ — _ ,__ — . — . 

-"^Perdue, "Paraenesis and James," 244. He supplies exam- 
ples from Seneca, 13th Epistle 15; 94th Ep_ist_le 21,25; Dio 
Chry SOS torn, 17th Discourse 2:5. 


4) Paraenetic precepts have universal applicability , 94 Therefore 
James does not consist of concrete solutions to ethical problems 
in a given situation as exhibited, for instance, in 1 Corin-- 
thians, a book dominated by ethical instruction although not 
paraenesis. Instead one encounters exhortations in favor of gen- 
eral virtues ( perseverence in suffering 1:2-4; purity 4:8; 
humility 4:10; patience 5:7 etc.) and decrying various vices 
whose specific circumstances remain vague and nonspecific (doubt 
1:6; anger 1:19-20; quarreling 4:1-3; slander 4:11 etc.), 

5) Although assuming that a friendly relationship exists between 
the teacher and the recipients, paraenesis "is an impersonal 
writing, not a confession in which reminiscences would be 
expressed. "95 xhus James continually addresses his audience with 
the words, "my beloved brethren" (1:16,19; 2:5) or "my brethren" 
(1:2; 2:1,14; 3:1,11; 5:7,10,12,19), and yet nowhere reveals his 
personal mem.ories, character traits, or the relational interac- 
tion that has taken place between the? teacher and the pupils. 

6) The primary function of paraenesis is the socialization of the 
audience or the refashioning of those who were supposedly already 
socialized. 96 ^0 accomplish this purpose norms and values are 
rehearsed to enable each member of the group to realize and per- 
form his/her proper role and function. Thus through verbal 
chastisement (2:21; 4:4,8,10) and appeals to reason (1:3; 2:6; 

9'^Ibid., 243; Songer , "Literary Character of James," 382- 

^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 17. Perdue, "Paraenesis 
and James," 246. 

9^This section is taken from Perdue, "Paraenesis and 
James, " 251-255 , 


2:14-17), James as "the significant other" (3:1) demonstrates the 
positive consequences of virtue (1:4,12,25; 3:18; 5:20 etc.) and 
the negative results of vice (1:6-7,11,15; 2:13 etc.)- In. this 
way the existing social world (the Christian community) is 
legitimized, a group identity and cohesion is strengthened, and 
boundaries are established which demarcate this group from other 
social worlds. In the paraenesis of James the church is dif- 
ferentiated from the world in general (1:27; 4:4) and from the 
wealthy oppressive landowners in particular (5:1-6; 2:5-7; 1:10- 
11), Those who are not totally socialized into the new community 
include the double-minded (1:8; 4:8), the adulterous people 
(4:4), and those who neglect to allow God's will to influence 
their business plans (4:13-17). 

7) Renowned human paradigms of virtue are repeatedly referred to 
in paraenesis for the emulation of the audience. ^"^ James mentions 
Abraham and Rahab (2:21-25), the Hebrew prophets and Job (5:7- 
11), and E 1 1 j ah (5:14-18). 

8) The simplest form, of paraenesis is the command or summons. 9® 
This accounts for the nearly 60 imperatives within the 108 verses 
of James . 

^^Perdue, "Paraenesis and James," 245 illustrates from 
Pseudo Isocrates, To Demon icus 8; Seneca, 95th Epistle 70-73; 
Test. Reuben 4:8f; Die Chrysostom, 17th Discourse ISf. 

^^Dibelius and Greeven, James , 3. Hahn , "Begrltndung 
urchristlicher Paranese," 90 desires to remove from the concept 
of paraenesis any characteristics of law since its Christological 
undergirding is the love command (Rom. 12:9; 13:8-10; 1 Thess. 
4:9; Gal. 5:14; Col. 3:14; Eph . 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2:17; 4:8; Jas . 
2:8) and the message of the kingdom of God ( Jas . 2:5; Gal, 5:21; 
1 Cor, 6:9f; Rom. 14:17), yet the imperatival nature of 
paraenesis always demands that it be closely tied i*?ith ethical 
norms and moral lav>7s, I.n fact, paraenesis could be described a.s 
the command of legal literature put into the teacher-student 
structure of wisdom literature. 


9) This conglomerate of admonitions which typifies paraenesis is 
loosely strung together by similar ethical content or by formal 
connections, especially through the* device of catchword. This 
accounts for the difficulty exegetes encounter in unearthing a 
logical structure for the paraenesis of James. Catchwords appear 
to connect seiyings drawn from different sources at 1:3,5, 
6,12,13,20; 2:13; 3:2,5,18; 4:10,12.99 

10) Characteristic of paraenesis is the I'epetition of identical 
motifs in different places within the same writing. l^^ Thus one 
discovers exhortations about endurance in tribulation at Jas . 
1:2-4,12 and 5:7-11, praise of wisdom at 1:5 and 3:13-18, 
instruction about faith in prayer at 1:5-8; 4:2-3; and 5:16-18, 
cautions against wealth at 1:9-11; 2:1-7; and 5:1-6, recommenda- 
tions for meekness at 1:21 and 3:13, advocation of duty at 1:22- 
25 and 2:14-16, and warnings about the tongue at 1:26 and 3:3-12. 

11) In paraenesis the poetical tradition of gnomic literature is 
transmitted in prose form. Thus paraenesis can easily be con- 
fused with wisdom literature as indeed has happened with the 
Epistle of James, 

12) Paraenesis provides little opportunity for the development 
and elaboration of religioLis preconceptions and theological .sub- 
structures. Instead they are presupposed or at best only touched 
upon. Consequently, the human side of the sanctif ication process 
is emphasized. Moral freedom and responsibility are in.scribed in 

99cf . ch. 2, section 1.0; Dibelius and Greeven, Jarnes, 7; 
Songer , "Literary Character of," 383-384. 

-'■'-'^Dibelius and Greeven, James , 11 offer examples from 
Tobit 4 and Rom.. 12-13. 


capital letters whereas divine initiative and God's sovereignty 
stand in the background. The paraenesis of James thus "presup- 
pose?s man's pov-jer to be a doer, to put aside all filthiness, to 
resist the devil, to draw near to God, to cleanse one's hands 
etc, "^01 The divine action is not completely missing ("Every good 
and perfect gift is from above" 1:17), but the accent of James 
certcij. nly coincides with this general characteristic of 

13) "Paraenesis contains fewer religious and theological proof- 
texts than do other writ ings , "1^2 since allusions rather than 
citations with introductory formulations are the general rule. 
This accounts for the form of the sayings of Jesus within the 
pai'aenesis of James where no quotations, no references to Jesus, 
and no exact wording are employed. The reason, therefore, for 
the particular form of the dominical sayings in James is not 
Biemory failure or the hypothesis of a first stage in the trans- 
mission of the Jesus- tradition but instead the characteristics of 
the genre of paraenesis. We will now attempt to substantiate 
this claim with examples from pa.raenetic texts, 

3.6 Exegetes have noticed that when the NT writers turn their 
attention to general ethical exhortations, they display a remark- 
ably homogeneous style. The following passages have been cate- 
gorized under the genre of paraenesis: 1 Thess . 4:1-9; 5:1-22; 
Gal. 5:14-6:10; Phil. 4:4-9; Rom. 12:9-13:14; Col, 3:5-4:6; Eph . 
4:17-6:17; Heb , 13:1-9,17; 1 Pet. 2:11-4:11; 5:1-11; Jas . 1:1- 

•^^■^Cadoux, Thought of James, 65. 
-'■'-^^Dibelius and Greeven, James, 53 


5:11,1'"'3 In speaking specifically about paraenetic passages in 
Paul, Dibelius offers some enlightening comments on the unique- 
ness of these sections: 

As a rule this section is in a style widely differing from 
that of the rest of the letter. It contains no far-reaching 
discussions based on religion or theology, but special 
caveats often in the form of proverbs either loosely strung 
together or simply following one another without connection 
.... In particular they lack an immediate relation with the 
circumstances of the letter. The rules and directions are 
not formulated for special churches and concrete cases but 
for the general requirements of earliest Christendom. Their 
significance is not factual but actual -- not the momentary 
need but the universal principle .... Thus we see that the 
hortatory sections of the Pauline epistles have nothing to do 
with the theoretic foundation of the ethic of the Apostle, 
and very little with other ideas peculiar to him. Rather 
they belong to trcidition . ^"^^ 

With the exception of the last comment which redaction critics 
have modified so that paraenetic sections are nov; seen to be 
affected by an author's theological foundation, these observa- 
tions coincide perfectly with our conclusion that the Epistle of 
James is paraenetic literature. The question now before us is 
whether passages categorized c^s paraenesis indicate the presence 
of sayings of Jesus in the same manner. If we recheck the eight 
certain allusions to the sayings of Jesus in the Apostle Paul 
which Fiirnish catalogues , ^05 ^^ discover that all are located 
within tv^o paraenetic sections, Romans 12-14 and 1 Thess 5, and 
each saying is alluded to without an introductory formula. 
Likewise, the ties of the Epistle of James with 1 Peter are 
explained by the use of the paraenetic tradition for catechetical 
purposes. As Perrin explains, 

^^■'^Hahn, "Begriindung urchristlicher Paranese," 89, n. 13 
In our opinion Rom. 14 could be included as well as Jas, 5:12-20 
lO^i^aj^-i-j^n Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel , 238-239. 
ICJScf. above, n, 15." '' 

It is not that James necessarily knows 1 Peter, but rather 
that there is a Christian paraenetical tradition into which 
sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels have been taken up, 
although not in the form of sayings of Jesus, and of which 
both James and 1 Peter make use. 106 

Finally, the most obvious paraenetic section from the Apostolic 
Fathers, Did. 1-6, illustrates that specific material from the 
Jesus-tradition consistently takes the form of allusions without 
formulae cdtand.i.'^-^'- Therefore, it is no coincidence that the 
form of James' allusions follow a similar pattern. 

If we investigate the referents to these allusions within 
the Synoptic gospels, we discover that they are not scattered 
randomly throughout the gospels but "come from a handful of rela- 
tively brief vjel l~def ined sections which are widely held to 
reproduce early blocks of tradition ." ^^^ With regard to Paul the 
three main sections involved are the Sermon on the Mount/Plain 
(esp. Lk. 6:27-38), the missionary discourse (Mt. 10:1-16 par.), 
and Mark's collection of sayings in Mk . 9:33-50. ^^^ Regarding 1 

l^^Norman Per r in, The _Ne,w_ .Te §i:§SL§IlLi-. ^^IL_XCiJL¥'.Oil3i£ tiPil ' 
2 55. 

^•O'^Cf. Lohse, "Glaube und Werke," 10. Some of the 
references to sayings of Jesus in Did. 7-16 (cf. Did. 8:3; 11:3; 
15:3,4) contain introductory formulations since specific problem 
areas within the church are being dealt with (as in 1 
Corinthians) and the authority of Jesus' words is being appealed 
to (as in 1 Cor. 7:10-11,25: 9 ; 1 4 ; 1 1 : 23-26 ; 14:37). 

l^^Allison, "Pauline Epistles and Synoptic Gospels," 11. 

-'■'^^Fiveteen of Allison's 24 parallels can be accounted 
for if one assumes that Paul employed the sources mentioned: 
(Rom. 8:15 = Lk. 22:2; Mt . 6:9); Rom. 12:14=Lk. 6:28; Mt . 5:44; 
Rom. 12:17=Lk. 6:27-36; Mt . 5:38-48; Rom. 12:21=Lk. 6:27-36; Mt . 
5:38-48; Rom. 13:7=Mk. 12:13-17; (Rom. 13:8-10=Mk. 12:28-34); 
Rom. 14:10-ll=Lk. 6:37; Mt . 7:1-2; Rom. 14:13-14=Mk, 9:42; Rom. 
14:14=Mk. 7:15; (Rom. 16:19=Mt. 10:16); 1 Cor . 4:14=Lk. 6:28; Mt , 
5:44; 1 Cor. 7:10=Mk. 10:12; Mt . 5:32; 1 Cor. 8:13=Mk. 9:42; 1 
Cor. 9:14=Lk. 10:27; Mt . 10:10; Mk. 6:8-9; 1 Cor. ll:23~27 = Lk. 
22:19-20; 1 Cor. 13:2=Mk. 11:23; Col, 3 : 5=Mk . 9:43-48; (Col. 
3:12=Lk. 6:35); (Col. 4 : 6=Mk . 9:50); 1 Thess . 4:8=Lk. 10:16; 1 
Thess. 5:2,4=Lk. 12:39-40; Mt . 24:43-44; 1 Thess. 5:13=Mk. 9:50; 
1 Thess. 5:15=Lk. 6:27-36; Mt . 5:38-48; (2 Thess, 3 : 3=Mt . 6:13). 
The more uncertain parallels are in parenthesis. 


Peter the allusions to the verba Christi primarily derive from 
two collections: Lk . 6:20b-38 which is also important to Paul 
(and James) and Lk. 12:32-45 which emphasizes the ethical impli- 
cations of a series of eschatological sayings and parables, ^^^ qj 
vital significance to our argumentation is the realization that 
these collections in the gospels were also employed for parae- 
netic purposes in the early church, m The popularity of the 
Gospel of Matthew in the early church is probably accounted for 
by the fact that Matthew (like James) wishes to develop the 
ecclesiastical ethical tradition and thus groups together sayings 
of Jesus into long discourses , ^2 Likewise, the close parallels 
between the Epistle of James and the Shepherd of Hermas (esp. the 
Mandates) are explained by both authors' vj'ish to transmit the 
paraenetic tradition, although Hermas evidences a later homilized 
form of this paraenesls . ^^'^ Thus we are confronted with a groiip 
of documents or sections of documents whose similarity to each 
other is determined by the genre of paraenesis. 

ll^Cf. Best, "1 Peter and the Gospel Tradition," 112-113. 

■'-^■^The catchwords in Mk. 9:37-50, for instance, indicate 
that paraenesis is being employed: 1) in my name: 9:37,38,39,41; 
2) cause to sin: 9:42,43,45,47; 3) good or better: 9:42,43,45, 
47,50; 4) fire and hell: 9:43,45,47,48,49; 5) salt: 9:49a, 49b, 
50a, 50b, Some catchwords in Mt . 6-7 include: 6:6,7 7rpoaei5xo/.iaL ; 
6:7,9 rrpoCT^uxofiGt ; 6:12,14 a^Ln\xi; 6:16,19 a^aviKh^; 6:31-33,34 pn 
o3j/ ]xep iiivhartxe ; 7:5,6 eKjSdAAw , .SaAAw ; 7:6,7,11 didw|JC; 7:8,9 
alxeu; 7:9_^12 avOpi-irroc,. 

-'•-^^Cf. Lohse , "Glaube und Werke," 11; Hagner, "Sayings of 
Jesus in Apostolic Fathers," 256; Edouard Massaux, L ' influence de 
ii.Evang_ile de Saint Matthieu s^ur La litterat ure Chr e_t ienne avarrt 
SaAfit Irenee ; and Erich Fascher ' s review in ThLZ 78(1953): 281- 
283 for the importance of Matthew's gospel in the early church's 

^^-^Cf. Lohse, "Glaube und Werke," 16. 


In contrast to the alliaslonary Bianner in which the 
sayings of Jesus are employed vvithin paraenetic literature, cita- 
tions with introductory foririulas are regularly used in situations 
where specific (rather than general) moral guidance is presented. 
Confronted with specific problems in the Corinthian church, Paul 
grounds his arguments in the authority of a saying of Jesus. In 
dealing with the question of marriage in 1 Cor. 7:10 , Paul 
specifies that it is "not I but the Lord" who prescribed this 
authoritative injunction against divorce (Mk, 10:11-12 par.). 
Likewise in 1 Cor. 9:14 Paul argues for the financial support of 
missionaries by stating that "the Lord commanded that those who 
proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" (Mt. 
10:10 par,). Since Paul appeals to verba Christ i from the gospel 
tradition rather than from the ecclesiastical paraenetic tradi- 
tion, one can differentiate between two strands of trEidition, 
each of which employed the sayings of Jesus in different ways.-'^^-'* 
When the gospel tradition is utilized by the leaders of the early 
church, the words of Jesus are employed to authenticate argu- 
mentsHS ^-^^ ^.q ground the church's life in the authoritative 
utterances of the historical Jesus, the Lord of the church. When 
the paraenetic tradition is employed, the words of Jesus are 
intertwined with Jewish wisdom, illustrations from nature, and 
the peculiar emphases of the author, in order to transmit the 
authoritative ethical tradition of the church. 

-'■■'•^Cf, Hahn, "Begriindung urchr ist licher Paranese," 89; 
Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel, 241; and below, ch, 7, section 

-^■'■^Cf. Joachim Wanke , "Die urchr istllchen Lehrer nach dem 
Zeugnis des Jakobusbrief es , " Die Kirche des Anfants, 501. 


Chapter 6 

1,0 We began this study by labeling the Epistle of James an 
enigma. Has our discussion of the relationship between the 
sayings of Jesus and the exhortations of James contributed any 
insights into the questions of introduction surrounding the 
Epistle of James such as date, provenance, and authorship? Some 
authors claim that no conclusions regarding background informa- 
tion can be reached from studying the epistle or its relationship 
with other writings. Dibelius, for example, contends that the 
nature of paraenesis, the stylized examples within James, and the 
lack of any character of correspondence as in, a normal epistle 
rules out any inferences about the nature of the community, the 
situation addressed by the author, or the particular geographical 
situation.-''- However, with the rise of redaction criticism some of 
Dibelius' views of the nature of paraenesis have been challenged, 
and again evidence for a particular Sitz im Leben is being inves- 
tigated . 2 

-^Dibelius and Greeven, James , 2,47,129. 

■^Kittel, "Der geschichtliche Ort," 81-82 and Robinson, 
Redating, 120-124 believe that the situation described in James' 
epistle is the poverty and suffering experienced during the time 
of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem (AD 48), Ralph P. Martin, 
"The Life-Setting of the Epistle of James in the Light of Jewish 
History," Biblical and Near Eastern Studies, 97-103 argues that 
because James sided with the lower Jewish clergy, the high 
priests under Ananus II found it to their advantage to execute 
him in AD 62. James' sympathy for the lower class poor without 
an acceptance of the Zealot's violent approach is discerned by 
Martin in the Epistle of James. Davids, James, 28-34 emphasizes 
the economic situation in Palestine which caused James to 
admonish the wealthy landowners and encourage his community to 
endure difficult situations with joy and patience, Reicke, 


In our rehearsal of the history of interpretation of the 
Epistle of James we outlined four strands of interpretation with 
regard to the difficult questions of background. Already in 
chapter 1 we dismissed the alternative of a preChristian author- 
ship advocated originally by Spitta and Massebieau by pointing to 
the Christian references Inherent in the epistle. In chapter 4 
we countered arguments aimed at proving a tie with the Gospel of 
Matthew and his community in Syr"ia. Therefore yet to be investi- 
gated are the possibilities that the Epistle of James is a mid- 
first century writing of James of Jerusalem, the brother of 
Jesus, or a late (post) apostolic document written by an unknown 
or pseiidonymous author from Rome. 

2.0 The thesis that James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus, 
wrote this epistle Is a well-founded hypothesis, since as the 
traditional interpretation it has stood the test of time and fits 
much of the evidence derived from the epistle, Hov^'ever, this 
traditional standpoint has cont inuoiisly encountered opposition 
since other theories coincide as well with the exegetical facts. 
In considering the pros and cons of this traditional solution v^e 
will first investigate the "Jewishness" of the epistle, then its 
Palestinian environment, the evidence for an early date, and 
finally the question of authorship by James of Jerusalem. 

^James, 6-7 contends that the Epistle of James is a circular 
homily urging political passivism during the reign of Domitian. 
Laws, James, 25,35 envisions a Sitz im Leben in Rome as the 
church is on the verge of experiencing moral laxity. Elliot- 
Binns, Galilean Ch rist ianity, 125 has used the fact that James 
"breathes a rural rather than a metropolitan air" to argue for a 
Sitz im Leben in Galilee. 


2.1 Written by a Jew 

The Jewish character of the Epistle of James has caused 
several prominent interpreters to conclude that this epistle was 
originally a Jewish document . ^ The enormous number of parallels 
v\7ith the sayings of Jesus'* is also best explained by a common 
background in Jewish thought patterns and verbal imagery. These 
Jewish roots can be detected in such teachings as the nionotheis- 
tic creed (2:19), the designation of Abraham as "our father" 
(2:21), the use of the Torah as the norm for all moral precepts 
(2:8--12; 4:11), the vital connection between healing and for- 
giveness of sins (5:15), the acquisition of forgiveness through 
the human acts of prayer (5:14-15), confession (5:16), and recon- 
ciliation (5:20), the application of the term "righteousness" to 
human actions (1:19; 2:23-24; 3:18), the condemnation of double- 
mindedness (1:8; 4:8),^ the theme of the pious poor (1:9; 2:5; 
5:6), and finally the close bond between the practice of good 
works and a just reward (1:22,27; 2:24; 5:9,11,20). The address 
to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion (1:1) and James' 
acquaintance with nonscriptural Jewish traditions also indicate a 
thorough knowledge of Jewish thinking. ^ Finally, "there is no 
reference to idolatry, to slaves, to a generally accepted low 
standard of sexual morality, to any surrounding heathenism,""^ as 
would, be expected if Gentiles were being addressed. 

^cf. ch. 1, sections 3.4. 

'^Over 180 parallels have been discerned, Cf. Appendix I, 
section 1.0. 

^Cf. Laws, James, 3-4; Jean Danielou, 5lLe__J'heol.ogyL_i3f^ 
J ewish C hristianity, 3 64. 

"^^^fT^Davids , "Tradition and Citation in James," 113-126 
and Cadoux, Thought of James, 11, 

^Ropes , James, 41. 


The Jewish flavor of James is likewise discei^nible in the 
gramiriatical constructions and word usage. The phrase dKpoaxriQ 
ejT LAt-]op.ovr)c, (1:25) displays the Semitic conjunction, of two nouns 
in the construct state, ^ and Trpoaeuxn TrpoCTrjugaxo (5; 17) is 
clearly an imitation of the Hebrew infinitive absolute. Typical 
patterns of Semitic parallelism can be discerned at 1:5,9,11,13; 
3:9; 4:8,9; 5:4, and the use of a passive construction to avoid 
the mention of God's name (1:5,12,17; 5:15) is a common Jewish 
device. The employment of the prophetic perfect tense in Jas , 
5:2-3a is reminiscent of the Jewish prophets (Is. 44:23; 53:5-"10; 
60:1-2), and the numerous Biblicisms reveal an unmistakeable 
familiarity with Hebrew equivalents,® In particular the express- 
ions "Lord of Sabaoth" (5:4), "Gehenna" (3:6), and "go in peace" 
(2:16) are distinct marks of Jex'jish authorship since these terms 
could have easily been replaced by expressions more Greek in out- 
look, Wherea.s in normal Gree;k usage noirizfiQ indicates a composer 
and Troinx)7q Aoyou a writer, poet, or orator, in Jas, 1:22 the 
translation "a doer of the word" displays Semitic Influence. 10 
Finally, in contrast to the practice of every other NT author 
(except the author of the Apocalypse), the title "Lord" is more 
frequently a title for God as in OT usage than a reference to 
Jesus Christ. H Therefore, the influence of Jewish thought pat- 

^Other examples are found in 2:1,4; 3:13; and probably 
5:15. Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James , 36-37. 

®Cf, Oesterley, "James," 392-396 and MuBner , Jakobus- 
bri_ef, 30-31. 

l^Cf. Plato, Rep. 597; Phaed. 234; Her. 2:53; 2 Mac. 
2:30. For further examples see the excellently organized pre- 
sentation of MuBner, Jakobusbrief , 30-33 and Chaine's detailed 
discussion, Jacques, xci-xcix. 

-^■•^Cf, ch. 3, section 4.5 and Laws, James, 3. 


terns and me?ans of expression can best be accounted for by the 
hypothesis that James was a Jew steeped in Semitic culture,, 
2.2 Written in Palestine 

Scholars who have postulated Palestine as the geographi- 
cal origin have concentrated their attention on the imagery util- 
ised by James. In a frequently quoted article Hadidian contends 
that the nature imagery in Jas . 1 : 6 , 11 ,• 3:11; and 5:7 supplies 
conclusive proof for a Palestinian background. ^2 -j-j^g ^.^^q terms 
dye|.i i^opxyy and pL7TiCopej/y (1:6) are said to describe a familiar 
scene on the Sea of Galilee, Palestine weather patterns are 
recalled in Jas, 1:11 as evidenced by the frequent employment of 
the term Kavcrup in the LXX,^^ Although Kava6i^ can describe either 
the scorching heat (Mt. 20:12; Lk . 12:55) or the forceful 
southeast wind (Jer. 18:17), those who advocate a Palestinian 
milieu prefer the latter, stating that "no one who has ever lived 
in Palestine can forget the Sirocco (Shargiya) -~ the blasting, 
scorching southeast wind which blows there in the spring. "!'* An 
allusion to the fresh and salt springs by the Dead Sea is seen in 
Jas. 3:11, and figs, olives, and grapes (Jas. 3:12) are typical 
crops of Palestine. The reference to the early and late rains 
(Jas. 5:7) is frequently reported as the decisive clue for a 
Palestinian location since the former rains fall in Palestine 

l^Di^rj^an Y. Hadidian, "Palestinian Pictures in the 
Epistle of James," ExT 63(1952): 227-228. 

l^Gen. 31:40; Jud . 8:3; Job 27:21; Is. 49:10; Jer. 18:17; 
28:1; Ezk. 17:10; 19:12; Dan. 3:67 9; Hos . 12:1; 13:15; Jon. 4:8; 
Sir. 18:16; 34:16; 4 3:22. 

•'■^Adamson, James, 63. 


after the sowing of crops and the latter rains just before their 
ripening. ^^ 

Many scholars, however, remain unconvinced that this 
geographical imagery points to a Palestinian environment. The 
waves of the sea driven and tossed by the wind (1:6), the scorch- 
ing heat accompanying the rising of the sun (1:11),-'-^ and the 
abundance of grapevines, fig trees, and olives (3:12) are pic- 
tures applicable to the whole of the Mediterranean region and not 
Palestine alone. Certainly James was not referring to the 
springs around the Dead Sea at 3:11 since "James' argument would 
hardly be assisted by pointing to a situation where these oppo- 
sites in fact co-exist."!'^ However, the reference to the former 
and latter rains is not so easily dismissed since this weather 
pattern is experienced within the geographical area from the 
Taurus mountains south to the Judean Negeb.l^ Although Laws has 
argued that the Biblicized character of James' vocabulary at 5:1- 
6 makes it doubtful that the details of 5:7 should be interpreted 
literally, the change in context at 5:7 does not substantiate her 
argument. 1® The familiarity of the phrase "early and late rains" 

^^Dt, 11:14; Prov, 16:15; Jer . 5:24; Hos . 6:3; Joel 2:23; 
Zech. 10:1. 

-^^Since the sun brings with it scorching heat {auu in 
Jas . 1:11), KQUcruy is probably best translated "heat" rather than 
"east wind" , but a dogmatic opinion on this point is excluded by 
the fact that the rising of the sun is coupled with a sultry east 
wind in Jonah 4:8 and Is. 49:10. 

•^ "^ Laws , Jame^ , 157. 

-l-^Denis Baly, The Geograph y of the Bible: a Study in His - 

Jtor j;CaJ___G e_ogT;a£hY , 4 7-5 2; Dalmon, Die Worte Jesu, 115ff, 172ff, 
29iff, ~The fact that certain Ms's "(K, 255, "398, 1175, it^^, 
gyj^hmg ^ read Kapnou instead of uetoi' is evidence that some 
scribes were unfamiliar with Palestinian climate patterns. 

^^Laws, James , 96. Davids, James, 183-184 offers four 
convincing arguments against Laws. 


could indicate that James' language was derived from Jewish wor- 
ship, 20 1^,^-1. .j.|^g I'esti'-lctiveness of this meteorological phenomenon 
offers strong evidence for a Palestinian provenance . 21 

Other pieces of evidence for a Palestinian provenance are 
less compelling. Since Jas . 2:2 uses the Jewish terjn "synogogixe" 
for the place of worship rather than the normal Greek designation 
EKKAncTta, commentators have argued that a Palestinian frame of 
reference is envisioned . 22 Yet the word auvayuyn was chosen by 
the early church to describe the Christian meeting place in 
Antioch (Ig. Pol, 4:2), Rome (Herm., Hand. 11:9,13,14; Just., 
Dial. 63:14), Lyons (Iran., Adv. .Has r - 4,31,2), and Damascus 
(BAGD 783.2b). Furthermore, the Epistle to the Hebrews which was 
written either from or to Italy (13:24) employs the term 
&TJ iaupayQyp, ,^ to designate the assembly of the church. These 
reports from varous Jewish-Christian centers within the Roman 
world as well as James' use,*- Cjf the term ticKAnaio: at 5:14 indicate 
that these words were used interchangeably throughout the first 
few generations of the church. Therefore the occui^rence of 
auvayuiyf] at Jas, 2:2 cannot point to any certain geographical 
center . 

^^MuBner, Jakobusbrief , 202 notes that this phrase was 
recited regularly in Jewish worship as part of the Shema (in Dt . 
11 : 14) . 

21cf, Adamson, James , 191; Cadoux, T h eol_o£y__o_f__jJ ajnes , 30; 
Kittel, "Der geschicht liche Ort , " 81; Mayor, Jame^, 162; Caster- 
1 ey , " Jame s , " 3 2 9 f f , 4 1 . 

22cf. Mayor, James, 79; Cadoux, Thought of James, 27. 

23bAGD, s.v, eTTLCTUj/ayuyr] , 301 calls it a word "scarcely 
to be differentiated from avi'aywyn" . 


Jeremias24 contends that a distinct Palestinian tradition 
is reflected in the alteration of the period of the famine during 
the time of Elijah to three and a half years in Jas . 5:17; Lk. 
4:25. If the six month period from the late Palestinian rains in 
Apsril until the forsner rains in October was attached to the three 
years of the famine in 1 Fvings 18:1,'^5 then Palestinian geography 
would, be the determining factor. However, other hypotheses 
likewise account for this time modification. Although this could 
be an attempt to round off the time designation to half the num- 
ber seven, 26 -j-j^g exegetical data favor a reference to the typical 
Jewish eschatological time period of three and one-half years (or 
42 ra.onths or 1260 days). In later Jewish literature (Dan. 7:25; 
12:7; Jos., ,Bei,l . 1:32) as well as the NT Apocalypse (Rev. ll:2f; 
12:6,14; 13:5) the period of three and a half years was used sym- 
bolically to envision distress and world-changing upheavals. The 
description of a, severe famine during the time of idolatrous king 
Ahab could easily have been identified with this apocalyptic 
designation. 27 Thus this eschatological time period was applied 
to events of Elijah both inside (Rev. 11:6,3) and outside the 
apocalyptic tradition (Lk, 4:25; Jas. 5:17). Therefore, although 
a Jewish tradition provides the background for this time designa- 
tion, no geographical limitation to Palestine can be proven. 

24 Joachim Jeremias, s.v. 'HA(e)Lac;, TDNT, II: 934, Cf. 
Kittel, "Der geschichtl iche Ort," 58 and Aland, "Herrenbruder 
Jakobus , " 99 for a rebutal of Kittel. 

^^Eric F.F. Bishop, "Three and a Half Years?" ExT 
61(1949-50): 126f; Cf, Ellis,, 98; Laws, Jajnes, 236-237. 

26strB III: 760f; Marshall, Luke, 189. 

2'^Cf, Appendix I, section 3,8. 


Finally, the trials described in the Epistle of James as 
well as its condemnation of wealthy landowners could trace back 
to the famine during the reign of Claudius (AD 41-54) which 
caused severe suffering to the inhabitants of Palestine (Gal. 
2; 10; 2 Cor. 8:9; Acts 11:29), However, Acts 11:28 states that 
this famine would be spread over the entire Roman v-^orld, not 
Palestine alone. Furthermore, since James offers no specific 
indications concerning the nature of the trials in 1:2-15 and 
employs traditional OT language to depict the oppression of the 
wealthy in 5:1-6, his descriptions are applicable to almost any 
time and place in history. Therefore, no arg\iments can be pro- 
duced to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a Palestinian 
oirigin is necessary, although It is certainly a good hypothesis. 
2.3 An Early Dating for the Epistle of James 

In calling for a redating of the NT documents, Robinson 
has argued for the primitive character of the Epistle of James, 
The arguments basically fall into two categories: 1) the 
undeveloped nature of the contents of the epistle and 2) the 
absence of certain characteristics expected in a late Christian 
manuscript. Robinson contends that the reference to wealthy 
landowners who withhold the salaries of their workers (5:4) des- 
cribes a situation which disappeared in Palestine after the siege 
and destruction of Jerusalem in 66-70 CE . Since James' address 
to the twelve tribes is best understood as a greeting to only 
Jewish Christians and since a church without Gentiles was a 
phenomenon of limited extension in the earliest years of the 
Christian movement, then James must reflect a situation where 


"the believing Israeli constituted the entire church" . 28 The 
undeveloped nature of the Christology is then used to reinforce 
this conclusion. Because the Epistle of James makes no mention 
of the sufferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the incarna- 
tion, atonement, or future life (doctrines which abound in the 
other FT epistles) , an early Jewish-Christian theology as yet 
uninfluenced by the theological implications of Christ's death is 
detected. The primitiveness of the church order is evidenced by 
fact that elders are mentioned (5:14-15) instead of a central 
leader as bishop and the ministry of healing is still in full 
force. A strong and vital fellowship characteristic of earliest 
Christianity is witnessed in the address, "my (beloved) brethren" 
which introduces almost every paragraph of James in a way 
reminiscent of Paul's earliest writing, 1 Thessalonians . 29 The 
early eschatological expectations; of the church are evident in 
the description of the return of the Lord "as at hand" (5:8). An 
early dating could also explain why the epistle does not identify 
James as the brother of Jesus since "the simplicity of the 
address suggests no crisis of authority or need to resort to 

28Robinson, Redatlng, 122. Therefore, he distinguishes 
Jas , 1:1 from 1 Pet. 1:1, Acts 26:7, and Herm . , Sim. 9, 17, If 
where a Jewish and Gentile Christian audience is in mind. 

29l Thess. 1:4; 2:1,9,14,17; 3:7; 4:1,10,13; 5:1,4,12, 
14,25 with every majoi" new paragraph containing this address 
except 1:2 (where it is placed instead at 1:4) and 2:13 (where 
the second sentence at 2:14 uses this address) . The frequency of 
this word in Pauline literature is greater only in the much leng- 
thier epistle, 1 Corinthians (39x), James, Romans, and 1 Thes- 
salonians all have 19 occurrences. 


credentials" . 30 Finally, Kittel contends that the nature and form 
in which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted (i.e. as allusions 
with no formulae cltandi) reveal that the epistle was written at 
an early date, 31 

In addition to the undeveloped nature of the epistle, 
many commentators point to certain historical and theological 
developments whose absence in the Epistle of James betray an 
early date. Robinson^S i^eports the following omissions: 

1) There is no polemic directed against Judaism whereby we can 
assume that the church had already begun to separate itself from 
its Jewish origins. 33 

2) In a similar vein, there are no suggestions of a Gentile 
presence in the Christian community, 34 

3) Coupled with the omission of a Gentile mission, the absence of 
any mention of the circumcision controversy could point to a vex-y 
early date of origin. 35 

4) There are no signs of heresy or schism as in later Pauline and 
Johannine writings. 

5) There is no hint of a reappraisal of the nature of eschatology 
p»romoted by the delay of the parousia . 

6) The complete lack of references to the fall of Jerusalem is 

30pjQj-jlj^gQj^^ Redating, 124. Kittel, "Der geschichtliche 
Ort," 73-75 and Davids, James, 9, n. 31 contend that the familial 
relationship of James to Jesus is stressed only after James' 
death, but the mention of their relationship in Mk . 6:3 is 
certainly an important early tradition, 

31cf. ch . 5, sections 2,1-2,2. 

32Robinson, Redating. 120,122-124,137-138. 

33Adamson, James : Man and Message , 161 explains that 
whereas Matthew is definitely anti-Jewish (Mt, 20:1-16; 21:28-34; 
22:1-14; 28:15), "James is wholeheartedly interested in promoting 
a Christianity uncritical of and firmly grafted on Judaism." 

34For instance, there are no references to fornication 
and pollution by idolatry, the two characteristic dangers associ- 
ated with a Gentile environment. Knowling, James , xiii contrasts 
these omissions with a later document, the Didache. 

3 5Adamson, James: Man and Message, 29 conjectures that 
the epistle was written before Paul was a Christian. 


7) There are substantial differences with the Apostolic 
jEi''ath6;rs . ^^ 

Although a good case can be presented for an early dating 
of James, other solutions can also account for the undeveloped 
nature of Christianity as well as each of the omissions mentioned 
above. The omission of the Jew / Gentile controversy and the 
orthodoxy / heresy apologetic can be explained by the fact that 
James is a moralist whose enemies are attitudes and behavior pat- 
terns rather than specific groups or theological heresies. 
James' deletion of the circumcision issue could reflect his Hel- 
lenistic view of the; law whereby the cultic aspects of Jewish 
ceremonialism were minimized to a point that the ethical law was 
the equivalent of the Torah. Finally, a latei-* date (in the 80 's) 
outside Palestine could account for the omission of the fall of 
Jerusalem and ■ James ' accusation of the wealthy landowners. 

Similarly an early date is not the only solution account- 
ing for the undeveloped nature of' Christology and the 
omission of specifically Christian elements. Paraenesis, by 
definition, concentrates on human moral behavior. Therefore, we 
would expect to encounter ethical demands rather than Christ o- 
logical propositions. We would expect exhortations describing 
the human response to salvation rather than soteriological state- 
ments concerning the sufficiency of the cross for forgiveness of 
sins. Finally, some of the arguments adduced for an early date 

^^Ropes, J_ames, 37 claim.s that "when v^e m^ake a comparison 
with the Apostolic Fathers the positive traits which give 
definite character to the thinking of everyone of them are all 
lacking in James." 

.OA O . 

are thoroughly invalid. The reference to the twelve tribes (Jas. 
1:1) jiiost naturally applies to both Jewish and Gentile Christians 
based on. the close similarities between 1 Peter and James. The 
church order is not as primitive as often assumed since the 
church officers are petitioned to care for the sick rather than 
those with charismatic gifts of healing. The anointing with oil 
appears to have developed into an established ceremony rather 
than a spontaneous inspiration of the Holy Spirit. James' 
eschatological statements also betray a struggle with the length 
of time required between Jesus' first and second comings. No 
longer as in Mk. 13:37 are exhortations "to watch" primary, but 
now an explanation for "why we must wait" is presented. Jas, 5:7 
explains that patience is necessary since the harvest must neces- 
sarily wait until both the early and late rains have prepared the 
earth. Likewise in 2 Peter 3:12-13, Christians must wait for the 
coming judgment, recognizing that with the Lord one day is as a 
thousand years (3:8).37 j\iand demonstrates that James' eschato- 
logical conceptions coincide just as well with the Shepherd of 
Hermas.^^ Furthermore, the frequent address "my (beloved) 
brethren" is used regularly by certain Apostolic Fathers. 39 
Finally contrary to Kittel, we have proven that the form of the 
allusions to dominical sayings does not substantiate an early 
dating for James since this identical phenomenon abounds in the 

2'^For differences with 2 Peter 3, see Laws, J ames , 35. 

■^®Aland, "Herrenbruder Jakobus , " 103 lists Vis. 2,2,5ff; 
3,4,2; 3,5,5; 3,8,9; 3,9,5; 4; Sim. 1; 3; 4; 5,5,3; 6; 8,8,3ff; 
8,9,4; 9,12,3; 9,19,2; 9,20,4; 9,21,4; 9,26,6; 9,32,1. 

39l CI. 1:1; 4:7; 13:1; 14:1; 33:1; 37:1; 43:4; 62:1 at 
the beginning of paragraphs; also Barn. 2:10; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5; 


Apostolic Fathers. 

2.4 Authorship by James of Jerusalem, the Brother of Jesus 

A large amount of evidence can be prodaiced to substcin- 
tiate the attractive hypothesis that the James whom we encounter 
in the Acts of the Apostles (12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18-25), in 
Paul's epistles (Gal. Irl9; 2:9,12; 1 Cor. 15:7), in the intro- 
duction to the Epistle of Jude (1), and in the gospels along with 
his brothers (Mk. 6:3; 3:32; Jn. 7:3ff) was the author of the 
document the church entitled "the Epistle of James". For the 
sake of clarity we will outline these arguments:'*'-' 

1) Since James the son of Zebedee was martyred by Herod in 44 CE 
(Acts 12:2) and James the son of Alphaeus (Mk, 3:18 par.; Acts 
1:13) is practically unknown in the NT, 41 James the brother of 
Jesus is the most logical choice. 

2) The simplicity of the description, "a servant of God and of 
the Lord Jesus Christ," most likely implies that a. XAjell-known 
James is intended and speaks decisively against pseudonymity . 
James the brother of Jesus is the only James who could speak 
without need of introduction as evidenced in Jude ' s introduction 
of himself as simply the "brother of James". 

^'-'The strongest arguments are presented in Guthrie, NT; 
Introduction, 736-758; Robinson, Redating, 128-135; Kittel, "Der 
geschichtllche Ort," 73-84 and "Jakobus und Apostolischen Vater," 

'^''James the son of Alphaeus is consistently designated by 
means of the addition of his father's name, whereas James of 
Jerusalem is simply called James (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 
2:9,12) as in the epistle. 


3) Origen testifies that the epistle was identified with Jarnes of 
Jenisalem. '^^ 

4} The Jewish nature of the epistle supports the s\.iggestion that 
a pious Jew ( Eus , , HE 2,2 3,esp. 5,6,19), such as one who would 
head a thoroughly Jewish church (Jerusalem), was the author. 

5) The similarities to the teaching of Jesus reveal a close rela- 
tionship between the two figures. Being Jesus' brother, Jarnes 
could have persoiially heard the teaching of Jesus or their common 
upbringing would have given them similar vocabularies and modes 
of thought . 

6) vTames ' speech to the Apostolic Council (Acts 15:13-21) and the 
composition of the resulting letter (Acts 15:23-29) exhibit 
similarities with the Epistle of James. ^^'^ 

a) xc^tpeiv as a salutation is found in the NT only at Jas , 
1:1; Acts 15:23; and Acts 23:26. 

b) Jas. 2:7 TO KaAdf ovoiia xo e tt i ,k A r/ 6 e i' ei'' vjiaq, ("the 
honorable name which was invoked over you") is paralleled in 
Acts 15:17: tip' ovq en i.KCKAr]xa I x6 ovoiici p.ou en' auxouc, ("who 
are called by my name"). 

c) The word oj.-opa occurs in Jas. 2:7; 5:10,14; and Acts 
15:14,26 in a specifically pregnant sense, occurring nowhere 
else in the NT in quite the same sense. 

d) Both quote the OT frequently: Acts 15:14,16-18,21. 

e) The affectionate address ddeA^OQ popular with James is 
also chosen in Acts 15:13,23. 

f) There are several examples of similar vocabulary: dKovaaxe 
with the address "ray brethren" (Jas. 2:5; Acts 15:13); 
S-nLcrKenxeaeaL (Jas. 1:27; Acts 15:14); xnpeZp and diaxnpeci^ 

42cf. Horn. Gen. 13:2 (GCS 29, p. 115, line 27); Horn. Ex, 
8:4 (GCS 29, 224, 6-7); Hom. Lev. 11:3 (GCS 29, 453, 8-9)7 Horn. 
Josh. 7:1 (GCS 30, 328, 3); Joann. 19:6 (MPG 14, 569-570). 

^■^These similarities are taken from Oesterley, "James," 
392. Cf . also Adamson, James: Man and Message, 18-20; Grosheide, 
J§M2feliS ' 327; Know ling, James , xxv ; Mayo r , Jajne s , i i i - i v . 


(Jas, 1:27; Acts 15:29); tn L(jzpe(p£ iv ( Jas . 5:19,20; Acts 
15:19); ayanrizoQ (Jas. 1:16,19; 2:5; Acts 15:25). 

The forcefulness of these arguments is undercut when we 
mo]?e closely examine the validity of these claims. This is espe- 
cially applicable to the last piece of evidence comparing Acts 
15:13-29 with the Epistle of James, The greeting XQ''-pet,v is the 
standard Greek epistolary greeting and is pre^valent among many 
Jewish writers; as shown by its occurrence in Esther 8:12b LXX; 1 
Esd. 6:7b-8a; 8:9; 1 Mac. 10:18,25; 11:30,32; 12:6,20; 13:36; 
14:20; 15:2,16; 2 Mac , 1:1,10; 9:19; 11:16,22,27,34; 3 Mac . 3:12; 
7:1; Arist. 35,41,4'''* The standardized, nature of this address is 
verified by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Jewish 
apocraphal texts as well as Jas. 1:1, Acts 15:23, 23:26 all con- 
tain three distinct parts in the exact sequence: the specifying 
of the author followed in the dsitive case by the intended 
audience and concluded with the single word, XQ'tpety.^*^ There- 
fore, no exclusive connection between Jas. 1:1 and Acts 15:23 can 
be established through their similar greetings. 

The argument that Acts 15:17 compares remarkably with 
Jas. 2:7 is also misleading. Acts 15:17 is an OT quotation (Amos 
9:11-12 LXX) in the speech of James, and the vocabulary of a 
source cannot be said to typify the usual vocabulary of an author 

■*'*Cf. also Jos., ViJia 217; 365 and the inscriptions to 
Ignatius' epistles (Eph., Mag., Pol., Rom., Smyr . , Trail.) which 
contain the greeting nXeZcFxa xa^peit'. 2 Jn. 10-11 also employs 
the infinitive form in speaking about refusing to greet heretics. 

'^■^The only exceptions are 2 Mac. 1:1; 9:19 which follow 
the order: intended audience, greeting, author; 1 Mac. 1:30 which 
attaches an additional audience after the greeting; and 2 Mac. 
1:1; 9:19; 3 Mac. 3:12; 7:1; Arist. 35 which add a greeting of 
good health. 


citing the quotation. Even a proponent of traditional authorship 
like Robinson eiclmits that the invoking of the name of God upon 
people is "quite unremarkable in a Jewish writer", 46 since the 
regular OT usage is here exhibited (Dt. 28:10; Is, 63:19). 
Unless we fail to understand Oesterley's argiiment that the word 
oyopa is used in a special pregnant sense, our verdict is that 
his judgment is imprecise. In fact, the specific sense given to 
the term dt'ojja in Acts 15:14 is clearly distinguishable from its 
content and usage in Acts 15:26. In the first instance the word 
"name" is a circuinlocut ion for God, while JesLis Christ is 
referred to in 15:26 and the translation, "for the Scike of" is 
more appropriate than "for himself". Furthermore, when Jas . 
5:10,14 mention "speaking in the name of the Lord," the m.eaning 
corresponds much better with other passages of Acts like 10:48 
"being baptized in the name of the Lord" and 16:18 where demons 
are cast out in the name of the Lord. Oesterley is correct in 
contending that both Acts 15:13-29 and the Epistle of James fre- 
quently quote the OT , yet this is expected in Acts 15 where the 
authority needed to ground a decision would naturally be the OT 
scriptures. The only logical deduction from this evidence is 
that both speakers are Jewish Christians or at least strongly 
influenced by the OT . 

Oesterley and others call attention to a group of terms 
common to both Acts 15 and James' epistle, yet the arbitrariness 
of their claims is especially evident at this point. The address 
OKOVcraze aSeA4>oi pou (Jas, 2:5; Acts 15:13) is not uniquely 

"^^Robinson, R§..?IS.ti..ll3 ' 130-131. 


Jamesian but is more exactly paralleled in Stephen's speech in 
Acts 7:2 and Paul's address in Acts 22:1 than in Jas , 2:5. The 
address auSpec, aSeAipoi coupled with the imperative ai<ov(jaxe at 
Acts 15:13 is certainly Lucan since numerous parallels in the 
book of Acts can be cited (1:16,29; 2:37; 7:2; 13:15, 26,38; 
15:7). The term eniaKenxeaOai is also Lucan since seven out of 
eleven occurrences are located in Lucan literature (Lk. 3x; Acts 
4x) . Along with en iaxpe(pe lu it occurs in "markedly different 
contexts in Acts and James and represents in fact characteristic 
Lukan usage rather than anything distinctive of James. "^-^ Regard- 
ing ayannxoc, any similarities with the Epistle of James must be 
dismissed since this address is employed as a popular term of 
endearment to defend the authority of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 
15:25) and not because it is characteristic Jamesian vocabulary. 
Furthermore, 6iaxr}peLv is unique? to Lucan writings (of. Lk. 2:5), 
and the phraseology in Jas. 1:27 (aajriAoy eavxou xripeZv) is 
closer to other writings where moral instruction is emphasized 
than to Acts 15:29.*^ Finally, whereas Acts 15 focuses on 
ceremonial pollution (eating blood, food sacrificed to idols, and 
the meat of strangled animals) , James nowhere mentions any 
ceremonial requirements regarding food, circumcision, the Sab- 
bath, or even the one ethical abstention cited in Acts 15:29, 
TTopi^etcr (sexual immorality). 

'* '^Robinson , Re da t i, n^ , 131 argues against his fellow 
proponents of a traditional authorship concluding that "nothing 
therefore can be built on such parallels." Half of the occur- 
rences of eni(jxpe(pe Li-' in the NT appear in Luke's gospel (7x) and 
Acts ( llx) . 

^^Wis. 10:5; 1 Tim. 5:22; 6:14; 2 CI. 8:4,6. Cf . BAGD, 
s.v. X)ipe0 , 815.2b. 


Contrary to Guthrie it is not that "these parallels are 
remarkable , "49 but what is truly remarkable is the differences 
between the speech and letter assigned to James in Acts 15 and 
the epistle supposedly wi'itten by the same brother of Jesus. 
Much of the vocabulary employed in the speech and letter is com- 
pletely absent from the Epistle of James but characteristic of 
Luke, The following list is enlightening: 

A. The relationship between the Epistle of James and the 
terminology employed in the message of James (Acts 15: 13-21 ),50 

1) Acts 15:13 QKOue iiJ : Acts and Luke rank first and second in 
the frequency with which this verb is used. 

2) Acts 15:14 &E,i-]yeZa9ai : not in James but five out of six 
occurrences in the NT are found in Lucan literature, 

3) Acts 15:14 KaOuc,: not in James yet 28x in Luke-Acts. 

4) Acts 15:14,19 eevoQ: not in James yet 56x in Luke-Acts. 

5) Acts 15:14 AaoQ ; not in James yet 84x in Luke-Acts. 

6) Acts 15:15 avi].<pov€Zu : not in Jaaies but half of the occur- 
r'ences in the NT appear in Lucan literature (3 of 6). 

7) Acts 15:19: KpLi^eiu is a favorite Jamesian term (6x), yet 
it is always used in an unfavorable sense, "to find fault 
with, criticize, condemn," whereas in Acts 15:19 a positive 
sense is required as in. Acts 4:19; 16:15; and 26:8.51 

8) Acts 15:20,29 QTrexe ^y : not in James. 

9) Acts 15:20 elSuAGu and noppeia: not in James, 

10) Acts 15:21 yevedx: not in J'ames whereas Luke's gospel has 
the most occurrences in the NT (15 out of 33). 

11) Acts 15:21 dpxa lOQ: not in James whereas 5 out of 11 
occurrences appear in Lucan literature. 

4^Guthrie, NT Introduction, 742. 

^'-'We do not include terminology from the OT quotes since 
this would be source material rather than the author's character- 
istic vocabulary. The statistics are gleaned from Robert 
Morgenthaler , Statistik des neutesta mentl ichen Wortschatzes 
(Zurich: Gotthelf, 1982). 

^^Cf. BAGD, s.v. KpLvQ, 451.2. 


12) Acts 15:21 7r6)\ic,: once in James whereas Acts (42x) and 
Luke (39x) by a wide margin rank first and second in the fre- 
quency of occurrence (Paul only four times). 

13) Acts 15:21 KTiP^-Jcrae LP : not in James but 17x in Luke-Acts. 

14) Acts 15:21 adj3|3aToy r not in James but occurs most fre- 
quently in Luke (2 Ox). 

15) Acts 15:21 auay Lv6aKe Lu : not in James whereas Acts (along 
with Paul) has the most occurrences (8x). 

B. The relationship between the Epistle of James and the termino- 
logy in the letter allegedly written by James (Acts 15:23-29), 

1) Acts 15:24 eneiSri: not in James but one-half of the occur- 
rences in the NT appear in Luke-Acts (5 out of 10). 

2) Acts 15:24 zapacrae iv : not in James; 5x in Lucan litera- 

3} Acts 15:25,28 6oK.eiv : The impersonal use "it seems best to 
me" is Lucan as in Lk. 1:3.'^'=^ 

4) Acts 15:25 6|jo0ujLjad6<; : 10 out of 11 occurrences in Acts. 

5) Acts 15:25 eKAeyeaOai: one-half of the NT occurrences (11 
out of 22) are found in Lucan literature. 

6) Acts 15:25 neiine iv : not in James; llx in Acts, 

7) Acts 15:25 7Tp6<; with the accusative: twice in James; 164x 
in Luke and 133x in Acts. 

8) Acts 15:25 avu: once in James; 52x in Acts. 

9) Acts 15:26 napaS LcSoua L : not in James; 30x in Luke-Acts. 

10) Acts 15:26 (pvxn : James 2x; Luke 13x; Acts 15x. Bauer^^ 
places Jas , 1:21 and 5:20 under the heading "the soul as seat 
and center of life that transcends the earthly" whereas Acts 
15:26 with Lk . 12:22f; Acts 20:24; 27:10,22 refer to "earthly 
life itself" . 

11) Acts 15:27 ixTToaxeXXeiu : not in James; 30x in Luke-Acts. 

12) Acts 15:27 tS La with the genitive: once in James; 54x in 
Acts . 

^^cf. BAGD, s.v. SoKeio, 202.3b. 

53cf. BAGD, s.v, ii>vxn , 893.1c vs. 893.1a|3. 


13) Acts 15:28 nveviia: in James nueviia is not employed for 
the Holy Spirit (2:26; 4:5) whereas the word is a favorite 
term of Luke (106.x Luke; 70x Acts). 

14) Acts 15:28 p.nSev : not in James. 

15) Acts 15:28 in lt ideva L : not in James; 14x in Acts. 

16) Acts 15:28 irXt'iv : not in James; more than one-half of the 
NT occurrences appear in Lucan literature (19 out of 31). 

17) Acts 15:29 TTpaaaeii' : not in James; 13x in Acts. 

One might counter this lengthy list of evidence by claiming that 
the vocabulary greatly diverges because the Epistle of James is 
not written to Gentiles as the letter from James in Acts 15:23ff. 
Yet since the list includes prepositions and commonly used verbs 
which are not controlled by the audience addressed, a comparison 
between Acts 15:13-29 and the Epistle of James cannot be employed 
to prove that James of Jerusalem is the figure behind the Epistle 
of James. Oesterley's conclusion that the similarities between 
Acts 15 and the Epistle of James "almost compels us to recognize 
the same mind at work in each"54 -.g totally misleading. 

Proponents of the traditional view of authorship further 
claim that the verbal and content similarities with the Synoptic 
gospels reveal that our author personally knew Jesus and heard 
his teaching. Yet we have demonstrated that the allusions to 
sayings of Jesus are in most cases quite different from the exact 
wording of the Synoptic tradition. No direct relationship with 
Jesus is necessarily presupposed since our author could have 
received his knowledge of the sayings of Jesus through contact 
with the church's paraenetic tradition. Furthermore, the obvious 

^'^Oester ley , "James," 392. Instead the vocabulary of 
Acts 15:13-29 reveals the hand of Lucan redaction. 



Jewish nature of the epistle could point to any Jew named James 
and does not necessarily specify James of Jerusalem. The view 
that the unmistakable note of authority in the epistle suits well 
the position of Janies of Jeruscxlem is countered by Henshaw who 
contends that "The idea that he speaks with authority is th 
exact opposite of the truth; he says nothing for which he cannot 
find warrant in previous recognized authorities . "55 r^j^^ conflict 
within early church history over whether the epistle was 
"spurious" ^^ indicates that the identity of ' lOKUipoQ with James 
of Jerusalem was not a natural deduction. The strongest argument 
for the traditional view of ciuthorship is unmistakeably the fact 
that we have ■ so little information about other men named "James" 
in the early church. 

There are three pieces of evidence which fail to 
harmonize with the traditional viev^ of authorship and force the 
exegete to rethink his/her assumptions: 1) the excellent Greek 
style; 2) the purely ethical content given to the lav^'; and 3) the 
delayed acceptance into the canon. The picture we deduce of 
James of Jerusalem from the NT is that of an Aramaic-speaking, 
Galilean peasant who spent his whole life within the Jewish, 
Palestinian, f irst -century culture. On the other hand, the 
impression we derive from reading the Greek version of the 
Epistle of James is that the writer was a cultured stylist with a 
large Greek vocabular'y whose diction is shaped by Hellenistic 

^^Thomas Henshaw, New Testament Literature in the Light 
of Modern Scholarship, 359, 

^^^^Ment ioned in Eus . , HE 2:23; Jerome, De Virus Illus- 
tribus , 2. Cf. Brooke F. Westcott, A General Survey of the His- 
tory of the Canon of the New Testament , 45 2. 


culture and a first-haiid knowledge of the Greek language. Mayor 

states that "the author comes nearer to the classical standard 

than any NT author, except perhaps Hebrev^rs, x-^/hich has Zi larger 

variety of constructions , "^'^ Although the contents of James fit 

well with an authoi'ship by Jesus' brother, the style and grammar 

indicate that Greek rather than Aramaic or Hebrew is the author's 

primary language. Its large amount of rhyme and alliteration, 58 

the use of rare compounds and particles placed in the second 

position in the sentence , ^^ similarities with the Stoic-Cynic 

diatribe, ®0 and certain niceties of grammatical distinctions^-'- 

suggest a Hellenistic writer. 

An increasingly psopular explanation for the excellent 

Greek is the supposition of a, bilingual Galilee. It was 

Sevenster's work more than any single influejnce that pushed 

scholarly opinion to accept this fact, rie explains. 

It is no longer possible to refute such a possibility by 
recalling that these were usually people of modest origins. 
It has now been clearly demonstrated that a knowledge of 
Greek was in no way restricted to upper circles, which were 
permeated with Hellenistic culture, but was to be found in 
all circles of Jewish society, and certainly in places 

^"^Mayor, James , ccxvi . Cf . Moulton and Turner, Grajimar, 
IV: 115. " " """ 

'^^Rhyrae at 1:6,14; 2:12; 4:8; alliteration on the sound p 
at 1:2,3,11,17,22; 3:2; m at 3:5; d at 1:1,6,21; 2:16; 3:18; d 
and p at 1:21; 1 at 1:4; 3:4; k at 1 : 26f ; 2:3; 4:8, 

^®Cf, Mayor, James , ccxviii-ccxix and the table prepared 
by Turner in Moulton and Turner, Grammar, IV: 119, 

®^Cf . ch . 5, section 3.3 and Moulton and Turner, Grammar, 
IV: 114-115. 

^•^Bruce M. Metzger, "The Language of the New Testament," 
The Interpreter ' s Bible , VII: 4 7 states, "The author observes 
certain niceties of grammatical distinctions (such as the correct 
usage of the two negatives in Greek, oO and pn) and maintains a 
high degree of precision in the idiomatic choice of moods and 
tenses . " 

-3 5 3- 

bordering on regions where Greek was much spoken, e.g. 
Galilee , ^2 

Therefore it is likely that James as well as Jesus^--- could 
understand and converse in Greek. Yet whether someone without 
Hellenistic experience, who spoke Greek only infrequently as a 
second language, could write in the quality literary Greek of the 
Epistle of James is another question, James' position of lead- 
ership in the Jerusalem church might have forced him to develop 
proficiency in the use of Greek. Certainly there were Greek- 
speaking Hellenists in the Jerusalem church from the very begin- 
ning (Acts 6:9} and "daily contact with these Hellenists, .as well 
as frequent practice in public speaking and debate, would give 
James ample opportunity to develop proficiency in the use of the 
language . "6'* Furthermore, if Jude , another brother of Jesus, 
could write an epistle in quality literary Greek, why could not 
also James? 

A second popular hypothesis states that James u.sed an 
amanuensis. Recently Davids has argued that 

In the light of the Greek idiom used in the work, it is 
likely that either received assistance in the editing 
of the work, or that his teaching was edited at a later date 

^'^Jan N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? HoiS...iillch_Gre_ek 
C ould the First Jewish C hristians Have Known? 190, Easton, "The 
Epistle of James," T he Inter preter's Bible, XII: 6 points out 
that "Nazareth lay on a thronged trade route". A complete list 
of literature supporting a belingual Palestine can be found in 
Robinson, Redating, 133, n, 46. Of, also Gerald Mussies, "The 
Greek as the Vehicle of Early Christianity," NTS 29(1983): 356- 
369 and Char lesworth, OT Pseudepigrapha and the NT , 86 who states 
that "the works in the Pseuc3.epigrapha reveal that Jews, including 
those in Palestine, could write in excellent Greek," 

^^Cf . Moulton, Grammar I: 8, n. 1. 

^'^Hiebert, James, 19, The Jerusalem crowd in Acts 22:2 
expected to hear Paul speak in the Greek language and presumably 
they would understand him. 


(perhaps after his death) as the chui''ch spread beyond Jeru- 
salem and began to use Greek more exclusively. 65 

However, there are no specific indications of the employment of 
an amanuensis as in the epistles of Paul (Tertius in Rom. 16:2) 
and Peter (Sllvanus in 1 Pet. 5:12). Furthermore, scholars are 
sharply divided over the popularity of scribail redactors in the 
ancient world with Beasley-Murray concluding that "in the Hel- 
lenistic age in which the New Testament was written . . . the 
dependence of authors on the art of the scribes was well-nigh 
universal", while Sevenster asserts that the employment of an 
amanuensis "probably seldom occurred". ^6 p^j^th such a lack of con- 
sensus with regard to both the utilization of an amanuensis and 
the amount of freedom given to such a person in composing an 
epistle, it is practically impossible to support this line of 
argumentation convincingly. 

Others explain the excellent Greek by referring to James' 
intellectual qualifications rather than the bilingual environment 
of Galilee or the thesis of an amanuensis. Mitton states that 
"James must have been a man of quite extraordinary intelligence 
and ability to have risen so quickly to the position he 
achieved ." ^ "^ However, James received his position in the 
Jerusalem church not because of personal qualifications but 
because of Jesus' revelation (1 Cor. 15:7). The paradox of Semi- 

°^Davids, James , 22. Cf . Mayor, James , ccxxxvii; Kittel, 
"Der geschichtliche Ort," 79f; and Lohse, "Glaube und Werke," 20 
who criticizes Kittel 's views. 

®®George R, Beasley-Murray, ^h§,_G§J}e^E.§,]i__3F.i3j^2^§S....j3B.:^^^ 
1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter , 19. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? 

^'^Mitton, James, 228. 

tic content and Hellenistic style could instead point to the con- 
clusion, that James was a rion-Palestinian ^Tew "whose rhetorical 
training was Hellenistic, but whose religious background was 
firmly Hebraic, "^8 .pj^g excellent rhetorical features and 
stylistic development could reveal the well-rounded Hellenistic 
education and upbringing of our author. Surely the qucility 
literary Greek alone cannot disprove the authorship of James of 
Jerusalem, but it offers one clue that the traditional view of 
authorship is not nearly as conclusive as sometimes assumed,' 

Dibelius insists that "the decisive argument against 
James as the author arises from the position of our document with 
regard to the Law."®^ The traditional picture of James in the 
Biblical record and the v^ritings of the church fathers seems to 
contradict the interpretation of the law encoiintered in the 
Epistle of James, The legalistic piety of James is described by 
Hegesippus through the pien of Euseblus, 

He drank, no wine or strong drink, nor did he eat flesh; no 
razor went upon his head; he did not anoi,nt himself with oil, 
and did not go to the baths. He alone was to enter into the 
sanctuary, for he did not wear wool but linen, and he used to 
enter alone into the temple and be found kneeling and praying 
for forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard 
like a camel's because of his constant worship of God, kneel- 
ing and asking forgiveness for the people. '^^ 

^^Easten, " The Epistle of Jarae s , " .The_I.Qi®rpr eterj.^ 
Bible , XII : 6 . 

^^Dibelius and Greeven, James , 17. 

"^^Eus. HE 2,2 3,6-7 in Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius: Ecclesias- 
tical History, LCL, I: 171. The truth of these legends is called 
into question by Dibelius and Greeven, Jame_s, 16 and Davids, 
James , 19, n. 71, while Danielou, Theology of Jewish 
9IiE.L^Xi3RLtS. ' 370 says that there "does not appear to be any 
ground for calling in question the historical validity of the 
text . " 


The Biblical record supports the claim that James was chiefly 
concerned with the ceremonial dimensions of the law. In Gal. 
2:12 James is regarded as the spiritual leader of the circumci- 
sion party who advocate that Jews should not break bread with 
Gentile Christians,'^! Likevvise in Acts 15 James insists that 
Gentiles abstain from certain types of forbidden food and in Acts 
21:24 Paul is asked by Jaraes to practice the ritual injunction of 
shaving the head. Thus in each prominent reference to James in 
the NT the importance of the Jewish ceremonial law is underlined. 
With this in mind one would naturally expect to be con- 
fronted with the significance of ritual laws when, reading an 
epistle from James of Jerusalem. However, although the obser- 
vance of the moral law is of paramount importance to the Epistle 
of James, nowhere are there prescriptions about ceremonial laws. 
The content of the law consists completely of ethical injunctions 
similar to the expected emphasis of a Hellenistic Jew, There is 
no talk of food laws, circumcision, the Sabbath, purification, '^2 
or eating with Gentiles even though the injunction at 1:27, to 
keep oneself unstained from the world, would have been an ideal 
opportunity for such ceremonial prescriptions. James mentions 
oaths in 5:12 but offers no examples of legitimate oath cere- 
monies. ^3 Neither are there any injunctions promoting the ideals 

"^-^This detail does not prove that James agreed with the 
Judaizers or was the real leader of the circumcision party since 
a consensus with Paul in these matters is expressed in Gal. 2:9 
and Acts 15: 13-21. 

•^■^Jas, 4:8 does not refer to ritual purification but to 
the fact that both overt conduct and inner motives must be set 
right. Cf. Seitz, "James and the Law," 481-482. 

'^^Cf. ch. 3, section 6.2. 


which James championed accox'-ding to Eusebius and Hegesippus : 
abstinence from wine and meat, avoiding the razor, and refraining 
from anointing oneself with oil'^4 qj, going to the baths. There 
is teaching about prayer {1:5-8; 4:2-3; 5:14-18) but never about 
kneeling in prayer; the importance of clothing is stressed (2:2- 
4,15-16), but the appropriate type of dress (wool vs. linen) is 
never discussed. Instead, moral and social sins are emphasized: 
evil desire (1:14), anger (1:20), moral filth (1:21), evil speech 
(1:26; 3:1-12), favoritism (2:1), the injustice wrought by the 
rich (2:5-7; 5:1-6), adultery and murder (2:11), coveting and 
quarreling (4:2), slander (4:11), and boasting (4:16), It is 
true that Hegesippus' description of James as "famous among all 
for righteotisnesrs" and "no respecter of persons" (HE 2,23,19 and 
10) corresponds with two emphases within the Epistle of James, 
However, righteousness is connected v^rith moral attributes like 
the absence of anger (1:20) and the presence of peace (3:18) 
rather than with any ritual ceremonies. Furthermore, the Greek 
expression used by Hegesippus to describe favoritism (irpocxojnou ov 
Aaiapdj^e lq) is not the term employed by James (TTpo(j(AinoKr^p.4>ic(ic, , 
TrpoawTToAnpTTe Lxe 2:1,9) but fits much better the pattern of Lk. 
20:21 {ov AapiSayeic; npoaunov) since in each case the statement is 
used by opponents as a covering for evil motives in the plot to 
kill Jesus or James. Finally, the expression "law of freedom" 
(1:25; 2:12) does not coincide with the apparent emphases of 
James of Jerusalem expressed in Gal, 2:12, Acts 15:29, and Acts 

'^^In fact, the use of oil is advocated for healing 
(5 : 14) . 


21:24.^5 Tf James wrote prior to Paul, as many advocates of an 
early date and authorship by James of Jerusalem maintain, how can 
one account for the inconsistency between the prominence given by 
James to ceremonial laws in Acts and Galatians and the complete 
omission of this emphasis in his epistle. If James conceded to 
the demands of Paul and Barnabas at the Apostolic Council 
described in Acts 15, certainly before this circumcision conflict 
he must have been more demanding with regard to ritual laws = '^® 

Most supporters of the traditional view of authorship 
challenge the assumption that James the Just was legalistic by 
pointing to James' spirit of conciliation in his approach toward 
circumcision (Acts 15:22f) and in his relationship with Paul 
(Gal. 2:9).-' Robinson contends that the ritual observations 
urged by James were not a matter of principle but only of tact 
(Acts 21 ; 21-26 ).■' ° James' omission of the ceremonial law could 
also be explained by the psirticular au,dience to which the epistle 
is directed, Davids argues that James would not "stress this 
form of piety when writing to Jewish Christians who held the same 

"^^Therefore Mayor, James, ii-iii is incorrect when he 
states, "If we turn now to the Epistles of St. Paul and to the 
Acts of the Apostles we find mention of a James who exactly ful- 
fils the conditions required in the writer of the Epistle." 

■'"Robinson, Redating, 132 insists that James' attitude 
toward the law is only an argument against placing the date in 
the context of the controversy with the Judaizers and not a gen- 
eral objection to his authorship, 

'^'^Jean Cantinat, "The Catholic Epistles," in Andre Robert 
and Andre Feuillet , Introduction to the N ew Test ament , 5 6 2; 
Davids, James, 19; Guthrie, NT__I nJ;r_oduct^_ij3n , 751. Kittel, "Der 
geschicht liche Ort," 99 offers the less convincing solution that 
Jame.s omitted the ceremonial aspects of the law to distance him- 
self from the raving, wild Judaisers, 

'^^Robinson, Redating, 132. 


position, "'^9 but the postulation of a Hellenistic audience in the 
Dispersion might also explain this omission. Since Hellenistic 
Jews emphasized the ethical dlme^nsions of the law to make their 
religious faith more attractive to the Greeks, it would be quite 
natural for James to omit the mentioning of the ceremonial law. 
These explanations; are plausible although it must be admitted 
that even staunch supporters of the traditional authorship adniit 
that the epistle "does not bring out a single one of those char- 
acteristics by which James is distinguished in history and 
legend . "'^''^ 

A third argument against the traditional view of author- 
ship is the late acceptance of the Epistle of James into the 
canon. The Epistle of James was neither accepted into the 
Muratorian Canon believed to represent the judgment of the church 
at Rome (170-200 CE)^^' nor included in the so-called "Cheltenham 
List" depicting the opinion of the church of Africa as late as AD 
360.82 Nothing in the writings of Irenaeus (185),^^ Tertullian 

'''^Davids, Ja-ffies, 20. Cf. Adamson, James_i__|ian_and_||e s •■■- 
s a_g e , 23. 

^' ^Theodore Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament , I : 
140. Cf. Robinson, Redating, 130. 

^^ Edgar Hennecke, Mew Testament Apocrypha , I: 42 states 

that the catalogue originated around 200, but Westcott, Histo_rY 
of the Canon, 212 contends that it cannot be placed much later 
than 17 0." Guthrie, NT Introduction , 737 appeals to "the 
obviously corrupt state of the text of that canon" to argue that 
little weight may be attached to evidence for exclusion from the 
canon, yet at this particular point in the text there is no evi- 
dence of its corrupt state (cf. Westcott, 530-534 for a descrip- 
tion of the errors). 

S2cf. Mitton, James , 219. 

^^Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, JameS' 34. Adamson, J3M§3,L 
ll§IL_.JJl^_Jl®s s age , 126 believes that Irenaeus knew the Epistle of 
James and Mayor , £ames, cxxi unconvincingly claims that James "is 
referred to anonymously by Irenaeus, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, 
the writers of the Epistle to Diognetus, and the so-called second 
epistle of Clement, by Ignatius, Polycarp ... during the second 
century; by Clement of Rome, and the author of the Didache during 


(200), or Cyprian (250) indicates any awareness of the epistle's 
existence. Josephus (100) and Hegesippus (180) preserve tradi- 
tions about James of ^Terusalem yet reveal no knowledge of an 
epistle. In. the east there is no explicit mention of the letter 
until the time of Origen (230)84 sjrice Clement of Alexandria com- 
ments only upon 1 Peter, Jude , and 1 and 2 John in his 
lY,££lYP.£§_s_is • ® "' In Ceiessirea Eusebius categorized it among the 
disputed books (dyt LAeyc|ieya) , although he harbored no reserva- 
tions about its authenticity. In Syria the Peshltta (c. 412) is 
the first witness to the inclusion of the Epistle of James in the 
canon. Probably the earliest incontrovertible quotation of James 
is found in the P s e u d o - C 1 e m e n t i n e tractate D e_V i r g i n ijt a t e 
(1,11,4) in the third century. 86 j^g place in the canon was 

the first century, also by Barnabas, and the author of the Testa- 
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs." 

^■^Jganin. 19:23; M t . 10:17 on Mt , 13:55-56. Laws, J ara^ s , 
24 thinks That Origen knew of James' epistle only after moving to 
Caesarea, but two third century Egyptian papyri, p^O gj-^^^ p23, 
contain parts of James' epistle. 

^^Eusebius (HE 6,14,1) states that Clement did not pass 
over even the disputed writings, i.e. the Epistle of Jude and the 
remaining Catholic epistles, yet it is questionable whether 
Eusebius intended to include James. Although Cassiodorus, chief 
minister of Theodoric, in his "Introduction to the Reading of 
Holy Scripture" says that Clement made comments on 1 Peter, 1 and 
2 John, and James, Westcott, H 1 s t ory o f the Canon , 357-358 
explains that "There can be little doubt that the reading in. Cas- 
siodorus is false, and that ^ Jude ' should be substituted for 
-James'." Clement's silence about the contents of James proves 
that he was unacquainted with the epistle, 

^^Dibelius and Greeven, James , 51. M.B, Riddle, "Two 
Epistles Concerning Virginity," The Ante-Nlcene Fathers, VIII: 59 
translates, "And they hearken not to that which the Scripture has 
said: ""Let not many be teachers among you, my brethren, and be 
not all of you prophets.' For 'he who does not transgress in 
word is a perfect man able to keep down and subjugate his whole 
body!'" In addition to Jas . 3:1-2 a reference to Jas . 1:5 occurs 
later in the chapter, "Blessed be God, who helps every man 
without grudging — that God who gives to every man and does not 
upbraid him. " 


finally assured when James was included in the lists of 
Athanasius (367) and Cyril of Jerusalem (378) and recognized as 
canonical by the Third Council of Carthage (397). 

If the Epistle of Jude was accepted from an early date,^'*^ 
how can we account for this late and gradual acceptance of 
another epistle assigned to a brother of Jesus? If the epistle 
was written by James, one of the reputed pillars of the church 
along with Peter and John (Gal. 2:9), would it not have quickly 
been accepted into the recognized holy writings of the churches? 
Harnack thought the hypothesis of an anonymous writing with a 
secondary prescript ( Jas , 1:1) would, explain why the epistle was 
not earlier recognized as canonical, but Dibelius has demon- 
strated that the play on words in 1:1-2 {xc('~peiv / vapai^ ) makes 
this thesis unlikely, 88 jj-^ j^^g place Dibelius, following his 
custom of explaining every unique aspect of the Epistle of James 
by means of its genre, suggests that since the language of 
IDaraenesis quickly becomes obsolete, the epistle was not accepted 
until the authority of its patron became important to the church. 
A similar opinion is proposed by Sparks who believes that the 
practical content of the letter was viewed to be of little* con- 
sequence by those who were more interested in theological and 
Christological statements , ^^ This might explain its lack of popu- 

^"^Accepted by the Muratorian Canon, Clement of 
Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian but in Eusebius' disputed list 
(HE 3,25,3; 2,23,25) . 

^° Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Lit- 
teratur bis Eusebius , part 2, vol. 1, 487f; Dibelius and Greeven, 
James , 53. 

^^Hedley F.D. Sparks, The Formation of the New Testament, 
129. Cf. Mi t ton, James, 22 7. 

laritv, but surely would not account for the disputed nature of 
the epistle,. A third solutionSO points to a limited circulation 
and sphere of influence among a Jewish-Christian audience as the 
explanation for the obscurity, and the fact that James did not 
claim apostolic authority as the solution for the disputed his- 
tory of the epistle. Yet the Jewish audience of the Gospel of 
Matthew did not result in that book's obscurity, nor did Jude ' s 
failure to claim apostolic authority result in omission from the 
Muratorian Canon. A fourth recommendation contends that James' 
late acceptance into the canon Vvas due to "the apparent con- 
tradiction between its teaching concerning the relationship of 
faith and works and that of St. Paul. "91 We believe this is the 
most likely explanation. Since the earliest descriptions of the 
canon talked about the gospels and Paul, any writing that might 
even faintly u^ndermine the authority of Paul would be excluded. 

Yet the disputed nature and delayed acceptance of James 
into the canon could have been caused by the early recognition 
that this book was not written by James the Just. This was 
certainly the fate of the Shepherd of Hermas which is excluded 
from the Muratorian Canon since "Hermas wrote the Shepherd quite 
lately in our time in the city of Rome. "92 jg j^.|- ^^f^ also pos- 
sible that Hebrews and James were omitted from this list because 
the church at Rome was familiar with the authors and did not 
classify Apollos^S and "James, a servant of God and of the Lord 

^ '-'Mayor, James, 11; Knowling, Jam_es, liii. 
9 1 Taske r , ""ot" In NT ,12 5. 

^^Cf. Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, I: 45. 
^3por evidence that Apollos wrote the Epistle to the 
Hebrews see Harrison, Introduction to NT, 378-379. 


Jesus Christ" as apostles around the year 180?^'* Their recogni- 
tion as canonical would then only take i3lace in a distant loca- 
tion, by those unfamiliar with the authors so that in Alexandria 
Hebrews would be accepted as Pauline and the Epistle of James as 
from James of Jerusalem. 95 This particular suggestion is 
undoubtedly hypothetica,l ; however, the combined force of the con- 
trasts between the cultured literary Greek of the epistle vs. the 
Aramaic-speaking James of Jerusalem, the ethical law of freedom 
of the epistle vs. the emphasis of James of Jerusalem upon 
ceremonial rituals, and the delayed and disputed acceptance of 
the epistle vs. the obvious atithority given to the figure of 
James, the brother of Jesus, compel us to consider other 
hypotheses of authorship and provenance which might account for 
these difficulties. 
3.1 Written by an Unknown James 

Could "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus 
Christ" be a different James than the brother of Jesus who headed 
the Jerusalem church? Kiimmel does not think so: "Without doubt 
James claims to be written by him, and even if the letter is not 

^^Cf. Streets r. Primitive Church , 192. Alternative 
hypotheses include those of 1) Zahn, Geschichte Kaxions , 953 who 
thinks that as the Gentile element increased in Rome, this Judaic 
epistle fell into the background; and 2) Westcott, History of the 
S.§Lli,2S.' 219, "The cause of the omissions cannot have been 
ignorance or doubt. It must be sought either in the character of 
the writing or in the present condition of the text." He opts 
for a corruption in the Muratorian Canon, but the character of 
the writing is a more defensible hypothesis, 

^^Llkewise, Jude, 2 John, and 3 John, although originat- 
ing in the east, were accepted in the Western church but omitted 
in the Peshitta and 1 Peter was omitted from the Muratorian Canon 
of Rome but accepted in the east. This might indicate, instead, 
that NT writings were more available and quickly accepted where 
they were sent than where they originated. 


aiithentic, it appeals to this famous James and the weight of his 
person as janthority foi' its content, "96 y^-f- ^-j^q fact that our 
author nowhere claims to be the brother of Jesus indicates thsit 
Ktimmel is overstating the case. Naturally this omission would 
lead to an identification with the most well-known James just as 
the anonymitY of the Epistle to the Hebrews led to an. identifica- 
tion with Paul and the unspecified John of Revelation became 
John, the Son of Zebedee ^ author of the gospel and epistles, even 
though the style of the Greek in each case is manifestly dis- 
similar."" Certainly a composition by some teacher of the church 
called James, of whom we know nothing, "meets the^ facts of the 
case adequately , "^^ 

Many commentators, on the other hand, have posited a 
pseudonymous document which appealed to the authority of James of 
Jerusalem. 99 In this case the murdered ''righteous man" of Jas . 
5:6 would be a hidden reference to James himself whose nickname 
was "the just". The foremost argument for pseudonymity is the 
experienced divergency between the real James, the brothe»r of 
Jesus, cind the James of the epistle where the literary Greek, the 
omission of the ceremonial law, and the tardiness of acceptance 
into the canon offer the impression that the epistle is an 

9 6pgerner G. Ktimmel, XPi r oduxrt ion_ t_o_ the^ 

9^0n the other hand, one might argue that this omission 
in the case of James was a gesture of humility and reserve common 
to the brothers of Jesus, since Jude also labels himself the 
brother of James rather than the brother of Jesus, 

9®Moffatt, General Ep istles , 2. Erasmus advocated this 
position and see D,W. Riddle and H.H. Hutson, Wew Testament Life 
and Literature, 198ff. 

^^Laws, James , 41-42 and Dibelius and Greeven, James, 19- 
21 are good examples. 


unsophisticated attempt at imitating an already deceased author- 
ity of the early church. This argument is overridden, however, 
by the totally surprising absence of a motive for such a pseudo- 
nymous production. If the author were appealing to the apostle's 
repute-itioR to ground his own teaching, why is there no clearer 
indications of James' personality and authority? Certainly the 
fact that James was Jesus' brother would be mentioned as well as 
more specifics about the controversy between James and Paul over 
justification by works in 2:14-26. Even Dibelius admits that 
"1:1 constitutes the only mark of pseudonymity " and that "the 
author did not have in mind some special purpose such as those 
behind the artistic fictions of style or situation in the 
pseudepigraphical literature" , I'-^O Without a motive and specific 
content in the epistle the hypothesis of a pseudonymous document 
loses its appeal. Furthermiore , those who advocate psenadonymity 
for the Epistle of James usually ascribe the same situation to 
Jude , 2 Peter and often 1 Peter. Dibelius, for example, states 
that "it seems to me very probable that the author of the Letter 
of Jude would not have chosen this obscure brother of the Lord as 
his patron unless the more vjell-known brother of the Lord already 
had a reputation as the author of a letter. "^^^ Thus among some 
modern scholars James is thought to be based upon a pseudonymous 
1 Peter, Jude upon a pseudonymous James, and 2 Peter upon a pseu- 
donymous Jude. This chain of pseudonymity in no way fits the 
short time period (a few decades at the most) involved in the 

-^'-'Dibelius and Greeven, James , 20. As a parallel 
Dibelius appeals to the Epistle of Barnabas, 

lO^Ibid. , 33, 


writing of these documents. The popularity of a pseudonymous 
writing must first be assumed before another writer would appeal 
to its authority or contents. Therefore, "it would seem e;asier 
to believe that it was the work of another completely unknown 
James"l'^2 than that the Epistle of James was pseudonymous. 

In addition to James of Jerusalem and James the son of 
Zebedee (died AD 44) , we read in the NT of James the younger (Mk. 
15:40), James the father of Judas (Lk. 6:16), and the apostle 
James, the son of Alphaeus (Mk, 3;18 par,; Acts 1:13). 103 j^ j^g 
impossible to link any of these men with the Epistle of James 
beceiuse of the lack of information we; possess concerning their 
life and work. However, "James was a common name and it m.ight 
well have heippened thait some later James wrote the Epistle and 
that he was subsequently mistaken for James of Jerusalem , "^O"* 
This theory, however, does not carry much conviction unless a 
particular Sitz int Leben can be described which accounts for the 
writing of the epistle and blends the author into a specific time 
frame and place of origin, -^^ We will attempt in the next section 
to describe such an environment of origin in the city of Rome as 

■^O^Robinson, Red atin g, 130. 

-'•'^'^Since James the son of Alphaeus is consistently men- 
tioned along with the name of his father, one might assume that 
he is not the author of the Epistle of James, unless the pos- 
sibility of confusion was eliminated after the death of the other 
apostle named James. 

-'■O'^Guthrie, NT Introduction, 755. 

lO^Davids, James , 22 has argued that the discrepancies 
with the character of James of Jerusalem are explained if we 
posit a later redaction of the Epistle of James. Yet this posi- 
tion is as hypothetical as the suggestion of an unknown James 
without any particular Sitz im Leben to account for the origin of 
the writing. Martin, James , Ixxvi-lxxvii has filled this vacuum 
by developing a possible redactional Sitz im Leben in Antioch. 


the apostolic age was progressing into the moralism of the; 

Apostolic Fa t he r s . 

3.2 Written in Rome 

Some evidence supporting an origin in a Hellenistic cen- 
ter has already beeja presented: the excellent literary Greek, 
characteristics of the Stoic-Cynic diatribe, a totally ethical 
concept of the law, and the conventional manner of greeting in a 
Hellenistic center. ^^^'^ Likewise James regularly utilizes the LXX 
as evidenced in Jas . 2:11 where the seventh commandment is placed 
before the sixth. ^07 ^ classical Greek oath construction (the 
accusative xou ovpavou ) is employed at Jas. 5:12 whereas Mt . 
5:34-36 {tf plus the dative) conforms to Semitic usage. Verbal 
p a r ct 1 1 e 1 s with F h i 1 o , a renowned Hellenistic Jew, are 
numerous , ^08 q^^/^ Moule concludes that the epistle "betrays a con- 
siderable acqxaaintance with the Greek moralists and sophists ." ^^9 
In particular James employs technical religious and philosophical 
expressions of the Greek language without adopting the underlying 
Stoic or Orphic concepts behind them: 1:18 AoyoQ aKudelac,; 1:21 
ep.(poxoc, AoyoQ ; the ship metaphors at 3:3; 3:6 xpoxoc; xric, 
yepiaciijc,; 3:15 (}'^X^^<oc, . ^'^^ From such evidence Kennedy concliides 
that "It seems difficult for any unprejudiced enquirer to evade 
the conclusion that the Jewish writer of this Epistle moved with 
more than ordinary freedom in the region of Hellenistic cul- 

^^®Cf. Laws, ^JaBl§_S' 5. 
l°'^Cf. ch. 2, sections 2.2 and 5,0. 

108Qf_ Kennedy, "Hellenistic Atmosphere," 40-52 for exam- 
ples spread throughout the epistle. 

lO^Moule, Birth of the NT, 166. 

-'•■^'-^Cf. Dibelius and Greeven, James, 21, 


ture,"---- If a Hellenistic environment is conjectured, then the 
city of Rome is the likely choice. 

Rome was a Jewish-Christian center. In his study of the 
Christian beginnings in Rome, Brown accepts the estimated figure 
that 40,000-50,000 Jews lived in Rome in the first century CE.H2 
Most of these Jewish residents had originally come as immigrants 
from the Palestine / Syria area.H^ This historical information 
could account for the agricultural imagery encountered in the 
Epistle of James which is admittedly the most difficult exegetl- 
cal detail to fit into a Roman provenance. The frequent travel 
of the church's teachers as exemplified in the Acts of the 
Apostles warns against equating references to Palestinian pic- 
tures with a Palestinian milieu for authorship. Our author, for 
instance, could very well have been born and raised in Palestine 
and leiter moved to Rome to continue his Christian ministry . ^ ^'* 
The tossing waves of the sea (1:6), flowers of the field (1:10), 
scorching heat or wind (1:11), harnessed horses (3:3), forest 
fires (3:18), fig trees and grapevines (3:12), sowing and harvest 
(3:18), mowed fields (5:4), and early and late rains (5:7) would 
then be either standardized traditional metaphors or the former 
experiences of an immigrant from the Near East. The gold ring in 
Jas . 2:2-4 may even have signified membership in the Equestian 
order, an official class distinction in Rome.HS Fui-thermore , 

-'■ -^-^ Kennedy , "Hellenistic Atmosphere," 51. 

■^ ■'• ^Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, Ant loch and Rome, 94. 
^-'■^Harry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome, 240. Of. 
Brown, Rome, 95, 

^■^■^On the laobility of early Christians see Abraham Mal- 

herbe , Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 62-68. 

™.™™;^™ — -™, — — — 1. ™™™™- — , — .* ^ 

-'•-'■'-'Streeter , Pi:JjniiL4Y®„Church, 196; Reicke, James, 27, 


from the combined works of Romans, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and 1 Cle- 
ment, Brown contends that a consistent picture of Roman 
Christianity can. be deduced which re\" "a Jewish/Gentile 
Christianity more conservative in its preservation of the Jewish 
law and cult than the ChristLanity of Paul in Galatians . " -"^ 1^ This 
description coincides with the centrality of the concept of the 
law in the Epistle of James, 

If we investigate the relationship of the Epistle of 
James to the Christian literature written to or from Rome, we 
discover that these documents bear the closest resemblance to the 
Epistle of James in both content and vocabulary. In James and 1 
Peter the similarities of terminology, subject matter, and order 
,of the material betray common patterns of teaching . J- ^'^ Both 
epistles are addressed to believers living in the Diaspora which 
could have been a standard procedure among Jewish-Christians at 
Rome. lis James (2:23-25), 1 Clement (10:7; 12:1), and Hebrews 
(11:8-19,3 1) all single out Abraham and Rahab as examples of 
faithful obedience. The parallels with the Shepherd of Hermas 
are so striking that one is forced to acknowledge litex'ary 
dependence upon James. ^^ Both could be picturing worship in a 
Roman synogogue (Mand, 11:9,13,14; Jas . 2:2). Both embody a 
Jewish-Christian paraenetic tradition which has absorbed the 

■H^Brown, Rome , 90. 

•'••'■'^Cf. Appendix II, section 2.3. The reference to 
Babylon in 1 Pet. 5:13 as in Rev. 18 leads us to accept a Roman 

■'■^"Mayor, J3.Sk§^> cxiv-cxv uses this common address as 
evidence that 1 Peter used the Epistle of James as source 
material, but see above, ch. 1, section 1.2. 

119Q.f_ App . II, section 8.3, 


teaching of Jesus into its thought patterns to such an extent 
that it is difficult to determine when a saying of Jesus is being 
alluded to. Snyder contends that the debate vvith those who have 
faith without works ( Jas . 2:14-26} is reflected frequently in the 
Shepherd. -20 Herrnas ' description of Christians who "continued in 
the faith, though they wrought not the works of the faith" (Sim. 
8,9,1) expresses precisely the sort of nominal Christianity 
warned against by James. A situation of moral laxity has over- 
come the church where business affairs have taken priority over 
faith ( Jas . 4:13-16; Herm . Vis . 3,6,5) and double-mindedness hcis 
become prevalent (Jas. 1:7-8; 4:8; Mand , 11:5-8), 

Of prominent importance are the common quotations in 
these documents. Along vfith the Shepherd of Hernias (Vis. 2,3,4) 
and Clement of Rome (23:3), James (4:5) recites as scripture an 
unknown book which within the limitations of our* present knowl- 
edge can best be identified as the book of Eldad and Modad.^^l 
Secondly, the exhortation against oath making in Jas, 5:12 sug- 
gests that the transmission of the saying:^ of Jesus by James is 
related to the tradition passed on by Justin Martyr in the city 
of Rome, Justin's citation ( 1 Apol . 16:5) appears to be a 
harmony of the Gospel of Matthew with the tradition found in 
James. -^2/- jyjore remarkable is the common quotation of Prov, 3:34 
and 10:12 by James (4:6; 5:20), 1 Peter (5:5b; 4:8), and 1 Cle- 

•'■^'^GraYdon F. Snyder, The Apostolic Fathers : The Shepherd 
of Her mas, 6:15 refers to Sim. ' s", 9 , 1 ; 8,10,31 9 , 1 9 , 2 ; ^ 9 , 21 ,'"2 ; 
Vis. 3,6,1-4; Mand. 10,l,4f. 

121cf, ch, 2, section 2.4. 

^^'icf. ch. 3, the end of section 6,2; Leslie L. Kline, 
The Sayings of Jesus in the Pseudo-Clementi ne Ho milies, 8 7 ; 
B e 1 1 1 n z o n i , Sayings of Jesus In Justin , 100,141. 

1 i J. • 

ment (30:2; 49:5) as well as the allusion to Is. 40:4 by both 
Jas . 1:10-11 and 1 Pet. 1:24. Without the use of each other's 
writings, such a coincidence of citation is statistically 
Improbable unless all the documents emanated from a common 
geographical area where these texts were employed, in a somewhat 
uniform Christian catechism or common teaching pattern. 

Anothejr literary connection involves James' relationship 
to Paul and the theme of justification by faith developed in the 
Epistle to the Romans. James' employment of the phrase "justifi- 
cation alone" (2:24) certainly entails a knowledge of Paul's 
unique doctrine. ^ 23 Paul's defense against the claim that his 
gospel leads to a freedom that nullifies the law (Rom,. 3:31) and 
is overly gracious toward sin (6:1) seems to be the iden.tical 
concern manifested in James' apprehensiveness about a teaching 
that places an unbalanced emphasis on justification by faith 
alone. Maybe Paul's clarification of his teaching as well as 
James' discourse on faith and works were both aimed at a freedom 
party (.set over against the circumcision party ---- Titus 1:10; 
Gal. 2:4-5,12; Acts 11:2) which had adherents in Rome. A similar 
balance of faith and works is advocated by Clement of Rome in 95 
CE . In the same section (29:1-33:8) he teaches a doctrine of 
justification through faith without any resort to one's own piety 
and works (32:4) like Paul as well as a justification by works 

^2 Srphi-oughout Jas. 2:14-26 James is concerned about a. 
type of teaching that separates faith and works, whereas Jewish 
thinking always closely combines faith and works, as Dibelius and 
Greeven, .Jasn^es, 179 and Ropes, James, 3 5 explain. Laws, James, 
131 adds that "even in 2 Esd. Ix. 7f., xiii. 23, where works and 
faith seem to be distinguished, they are seen as alternative pos- 
sible means of salvation and not as opposed." 

and not through words (30:3) like Jaraes . If these documents 
emanate from a common Christian community in Rome, then this con- 
troversy over justification by faith and works evidenced in Jas . 
2:14-26 has been solved before the writing of 1 Clement. 124 
3.3 An Approximate Date for the Epistle of James; there any indications of an approximate date when 
James could have recorded his paraenesis from Rome? As we have 
noted earlier, exegetes who favor an authorship by James of 
Jerusalem often place the date very early before any conflicts 
over circumcision and the place of the Gentiles within the 
church. Yet several factors attest that a significant period of 
time has elapsed since the cross and resurrection event launched 
the kerygma of a crucified Lord into the Graeco-Roman world. 
First of all, there is a complete absence of any concern about 
laying the foundations of the faith. Powell contends that 

The many references to teaching and to teachers . . , suggests 
that it is not written to a community (or communities) still 
in the missionary stage, but to a settled group. P>?hat the 
community now needs is sound moral teaching to prevent 
deterioration . ■^-■^ 

The distinctively kerygmatic tenets of the atonement, the tDerson 

of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are, therefore, assumed rather than 

proclaimed. The ethical demand is now called, upon to remedy the 

crisis of the present situation. James' emphasis on the evils of 

double-mindedness (1:8; 4:8), instability (1:8; 3:8,16), and 

^^^Hartin, James and Q , 239 employs a. similar argument 
about faith and works to argue for a connection with Antioch. 
Therefore, the Epistle of James would probably speak to the prob- 
lems of the Jewish-Christian comm.unity throughout the diaspora 
and not just in Rome. 

^^^Cyril H, Powell, "Faith in James and its Bearing on 
the Problem of the Date of the Epistle," ExT 62(1950): 312. 

_ O 7 '3. - 

friendship with the world (4:4; 1:27) suggests a protest against 
secularist tendencies which are for the first time emerging in 
the history of Christianity. It is the morally lax who are the 
adulterous people (4:4), the doiible-jainded, and the real sinners 
(4:8). Exhortations aimed at disciples who are hearers of the 
message without being doers call attention to a situation where 
nominal Christianity has become a problem, James' emphasis upon 
waiting patiently for the coming of the Lord (5:7-8) without 
grumbling (5:9) assumes that his audience has been diverted from 
an attitude of v-ratchf ulness by their present circumstances. 
Since this is reminiscent of the moral ism encountered in the 
Apostolic Fathers, the beginning of this process might be evident 
in the short epistle under our microscope. 

The second indication of a later date is the form in 
which the sayings of Jesus are transmitted. Kittel argued that 
their allusionary character attests to an early period before 
introductory formulations were employed, but we have shown that 
the genre of paraenesis is the determining factor for James' use 
of allusions. This process of^ standardization within the ethical 
instruction of the church must have taken a considerable amount 
of time. Furthermore, James' employment of the Pauline for- 
mulation "justification by faith alone" (2:24) implies that Jas . 
2:14-26 cannot be imagined without the Pauline mission. A date 
before the circumcision controversies is, therefore, untenable. 
Certainly a date within the second or third generation of 
Christians must be postulated . ^ 26 

-^26Qf_ Lohse , "Glaube und Werke," 13 


These factors, however, do not compel one to acknowledge 
a post-apostolic, second century date since striking contrasts 
with the Apostolic Fathers are also evident. Ropes has 
enumerated the following omissions in the Epistle of James: 1) no 
inclinatioR to asceticism; 2) no sacramental theology; 3} no 
speculative interests; 4) no " intellectualistic" view of faith in 
the acceptance of certain propositions; 5) no allegorical inter- 
pretations; nor 6) does James "carry what might readily have 
become a doctrine of works and of the human will a step beyond 
the simple expression of sincere moral earnestness . "127 ^^^ could 
add to this list the fact that a harmonization of the various 
gospel traditions encountered in the Didache (1:3-2:1) and Justin 
Martyr is missing in James. Furthermore, the rich are primarily 
outside the Christian community whereas in Hermas (Vis. 3,9,5-6; 
Sim. 2:5) the rich have thoroughly infiltrated the church. If we 
compare the eschatology of James and 2 Peter, we perceive that: 

While 2 Peter admits and interprets delay in the fulfilm.ent 
of eschatological hope (iii. 8f), James affirms its Imminence 

{v. 8f); and while 2 Peter writes in the knowledge of some 
collection of Paul's letters, James' contact with Paul is in 

"oral tradition '. 128 

Finally, the heated controversy over faith and works in Jas . 
2:14-26 has been solved by the time of Clement of Rome (1 CI. 30- 
34). Thus if one decides that the geographical environ».ent 
explains the similarities between James, 1 Peter, and the 
Shepherd of Hermas , then the Epistle of James stands in the gap 

l^^pQpgg^ James , 37-38. Ropes is mistaken about item 4 
since an Intellectualistic view of faith is opposed by James in 
Jas. 2:14-26, 

l^SjjQ^^g^ James, 35, 


between the wi-itings of Paul and the cori-espondence of Clement 
with the Corinthians, between 1 Peter and the Shepherd of Hennas. 
A date in the 80 ' s is therefore about as precise as one could 
hope to posit. Thus, within this hypothesis it is conjectured 
that a teacher in Rome by the name of James in a. crisis of moral 
laxity instructed his Christian group and all the new Israel 
scattered throughout the Diaspora on the ethical implications of 
their faith. 
4.0 Conclusions 

We have drawn attention to the insufficient evidence sup- 
porting an authorship by James of Jerusalem around the time of 
the Apostolic Council. As an alternative we have postulated an 
authorship^ by an unknown James from Rome between the time of the 
apostles and 1 Clement. However, this theory is also based on an 
unsturdy foundation since all the evidence v-.?hich supports it is 
used by other authors to support a contrary conclusion. 

First of all, a Hellenistic provenance remains a point of 
contention since the ambiguous evidence causes authors to inter- 
pret the exegetical data in different directions. Jeremias 
identifies the three and a half year famine of Jas , 5:17 as a 
Palestinian tradition while Lohse argues for a Hellenistic 
environment. 129 girk contends that "the list of adjectives by 
which Wisdom is described is part of a current practice of Hel- 
lenism adopted by a Greek--spea.king James, "130 i^^j^^ ^j-^g similar 

129jeremias, s.v. 'HA(e)LaQ, TDNT, II: 934 vs. Lohse, 
"Glaube und Werke," 19-20. 

l^^James A, Kirk, "The Meaning of Wisdom in James; 
Examination of a Hypothesis," NTS 16(1969): 26. 

list in IQS 4:3 at Qumrari indicates that this practice had also 
found a home in Palestinian territory . ^-^l Lav^s points out that 
"some of his striking metaphors have little biblical background, 
but are commonplace in Greek and Latin 11 terature ,'' 1^2 y^iiHe 
other authors insistent that the imagery is strikingly 
Palestinian . 13o There is evidence that Palestinian as-? well as 
Hellenistic Jews could employ excellent literary Greek and use 

the conventional greetings of Hellenistic letters as well as the 


Secondly if we posit a Roman provenance for the Epistle 
of James, we would expect to encounter a Jewish Christianity 
which emphasized the ethical dimensions of the law rather than 
ritual. Yet ancient Roman writers "allude to the scrupulousness 
of the Roman Jews in observing the Sabbath, eibstaining froni pork, 
and practicing the rite of circumcision. " -35 Furthermore, the 
similarities between James, 1 Peter, 1 Clement, and the Shepherd 
of Hermas could also point to a standard ethical teaching in the 
Jewish-Christian community rather than a tradition limited to the 
geographical area of Rome. We just do not have enough informa- 
tion about Jewish Christianity in Palestine to connect the 
Epistle of James with documents from this area. 

Thirdly, one is not compelled to postulate a time of 
origin at the beginning of the Apostolic Fathers. The conflict 

•'■^-'■Cf. Davids, Janies, 54. 

-^^Lstvm, James , 5 mentions the horse and the ship in Jas . 
3:3f , the images oF human control over the animal kingdom in 3:7, 
and the mist in 4:14. 

■'-■^^Cf. above, section 3.2. 

^^^Cf. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 100-102. 

-^•^^Leon, Jews of Ancient Rome, 244. 


between justification by faith and wc3-rks can be intex-'preted not 
only against a background of Paul's theology but, as Knowling 
contends, with i^eference to "a Jewish acceptance of faith as 
purely intellectual, and to an antinomianism which might at any 
time* invade the church, and which St. Paul, nay our Lord Himself, 
rebuked and condemned, "136 ^^ evidenced in Rom. 2:13-24 and Mt . 
7:21ff. Other supporters of the traditional view of authorship 
admit that James was written in "a period when faith had lost 
some of its original fervour and was in danger of developing into 
a barren orthodoxy, " ^37 yg-^- perceive no problem in assigning the 
letter to a time just before the death of James of Jerusalem. ■'•^'^ 
The development of a standard ethical tradition ("catechism") 
must have taken a period of time to develop, but this is fully 
possible in the three decades between Jesus' death and the murder 
of James the Just. With regard to the development of ecclesias- 
tical structure, the exhortation in Jas . 5:14 to call the elders 
could merely refer to elders in a. Jewish-Christian setting 
without implying an organized hierarchy. 

The decision which a modern reader of the Epistle of 
James arrives at with regard to its authorship appears to be 
dependent upon the reader's particular emphasis. If the 

l^'^^Knov'.'ling, James, Ixiii, Robinson, ILedajting/ 126 uses 
Mt. 3:8-10; 7:16-27; r2T33-35; 21:28-31; 25:31-46" to argue that 
James is "taking up an attack, begun by Jesus and the Baptist 
before Him, on the inadequacies of contemporary Judaism." 

13'^Tasker, OT in NT, 124. Cf. Mitton, James, 233. 

l^^Hegesippus , as preserved in Eus . , HE 2:23, says that 
the martyrdom of James took place after the outbreak of the 
Jewish War because Christians refused to participate in this 
struggle against Rome, thus making James' death about 67 CE, but 
a more authentic tradition appears in Jos., Ant. 20,9,1 which 
assigns his death to 62 . 


Palestinian imagery is emphasized, then James of Jerusalem is the 
recognized author. If the i^elationship with 1 Peter, 1 Clement, 
and the Shepherd of Hennas is emphasized, then authorship by a 
Jewish Christian in Rome is the logical conclusion. The exact 
same evidence is interpreted in different ways to support each of 
the above hypotheses . ^••-•Si Hov/ever, if we choose for an authorship 
by James of Jerusalem, then we must admit that the traditional 
picture of an ascetic, legalistic James who spoke primarily 
Aramaic and emphasized the ceremonial dimensions of the law does 
not fit the givens of this epistle. Therefore, we must either 
adjust our image of James, the brother of Jesus, or assign the 
epistle to an unknown Jarnes in the provenance of Rome. Since the 
traditions.! assumption of authorship has stood the test of time 
and explains most of the exegetical givens of the text, a deci- 
sion to adjust our image of James of Jerusalem is the p.referable 

The missing emphasis is the mediating personality of 
James of Jerusalem. The conciliar role of James explains many of 
the discrepancies between the brother of Jesus and James, a 
servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, Just as in Acts 15 
James instigated a compromise that pleased both sides in the cir- 
cumcision debate (Acts 15), so he attempts to develop a doctrine 
of justification which neither excludes faith nor works ( Jas . 
2:14-26). Just as in Acts 21:17-26 James attempts to play a 

^•■^^Oesterley , "James," 404-405 observes, "Against every 
argument adduced in favour of either view serious objections can 
be urged; but then these objections, again, can for the most part 
be upset by counter-argumients . " 


mediator ial role between Paul and the Jerusalem Jews so James in 
his epistle employs excellent literary Greek and the LXX and 
deliberately omits the ceremonial aspects of the law to address 
Hellenistic Jev^isYi Christians. Just as James' gracious recep- 
tion of Paul (Gal. 2:9) demonstrates his unwillingness to create 
an offense, so as a peacemaker he teaches an attitiide of 
restraint with regard to anger (1:19-20) and the tongue (3:1-12), 
mutual respect without recrimination (3:18; 4:2), and a patient 
waiting for God to act in the midst of trials (5:7-11; 1:12). 
His conciliar personality causes him to develop a "both and" 
theology where both, hearing and speaking (1:19), hearing and. 
doing (1:22-25), speaking and doing (1:26-27), the poor and the 
rich (2:1-8), the love command and the decalogue (2:8-13), faith 
and v-iorks (2:14"-26), blessing God and people (3:8), knowing and 
doing (4:17) are emphasized. Thus a coi-rect understanding of 
James of Je.rusalem can overcome any hesitations about accepting 
the epistle as eminating from Ja.Kies, the brother of Jesus. 

-3 80- 

Chapter 7 

The Relationship of the Epistle of James to the 
S y n o p t i c T r a d i 1 1 o n 

1.1 The number of alliisions to the sayings of the Jesus- 
tradition in the Epistle of James has been greatly exaggerated. 
Over the last two centuries commentators have identified over 180 
possible references to the teaching of Jesus, ^ yet tvjo-thirds of 
these authors agree on only six psarallel texts. These statistics 
indicate the arbitrariness involved in the selection process as 
well as the complete lack of distinction between different types 
of parallels. Recently Davids has attempted to correct this 
tendency by distinguishing between indirect citations, close 
allusions, possible allusions, basic concepts, concepts of 
parable, and ideas of narrative. 2 since any clear demarcation 
between the categories of indirect citation, close allusion, and 
possible allusion is almost impossible to define, we prefer to 
differentiate the following categories: 1) quotations or cita- 
tions; 2) allusions or intended, reminiscences; 3) parallels; of 
both cojnmon content and similar terminology; 4) parallels of con- 
tent; 5) parallels of terminology; 6) common references to other 
writings or sources. The most important category for determining 
literary dependence is, of course, the presence of quotations 

^Cf. Appendix I, section 1.0. We have studied the 40 
most important parallels, twenty in chapter 3 and 20 in Appendix 
I . 

■^Davids, "James and Jesus," 66-67, 

where a,n introductory formula cites the source with (almost) 
exact wording. To define a saying as an allusion, there must be 
substantial verbal similarities as well as a comHion context and 
emphasis of content. Other allusions in the immediate context 
help to establish with greater certainty the presence of an allu- 
sion.-^ Parallels with both similar terminology and conimon content 
provide the closest category to that of allusion, although a dif- 
ference of emphasis or an author's p)eculiar usage of sirnilcir 
material indicates that no intended reminiscence can be sub- 
stantiated. Paralleeis with only analogous subject matter as well 
as instances of mere verbal correspondence are far less helpful 
in deteririining literary dependence. Their importance lies in the 
valuable information they contribute for a comparison of the 
theology and distinctive vocabulary of the various authors. The 
employment of these categories can facilitate a classification of 
the manifold abundance of parallels so that the precise relation- 
ship between the teaching of Jesus and the moral exhortations of 
James can be deteinnined . 

1) Citations: The Epistle of James quotes the OT six times, but 
the sayings of Jesus are never cited with introductory formulas. 

2} Allusions: (8) 

a) to Q : 

Jas . 1 : 5=Mt . 7:7; Lk . 11:9 Ask and you will receive 
Jas . 4:2c-3=Mt. 7:7; Lk , 11:9 Ask and you will i^eceive 

b) to Q where the Lucan parallel is closer to James: 

Jas. 2:5=Lk. 6:20b; Mt , 5:3 the kingdom belongs to the poor 

c) to both the Q and M traditions: 

Jas. 5:2-3a=Mt. 6:19-20; Lk . 12:33b against the treasuring 

up of wealth 

cl) to peculiarly Lucan material: 

Jas. 4:9^Lk. 6:21,25b those who laugh will mourn 
Jas , 5:l=Lk. 6:24 woe to the rich 

e) to peculiarly Matthean material: 

Jas. 5:12=:Mt. 5:33-37 on oaths and truth-telling 

f) to inrlepen(3ent sayings used by both Matthew and Luke: 
Jas. 4:10=Mt. 23:12; Lk , 14:11; 18:14b the humble are 


3) Parallels of both content and wording: (6) 

a.) listed in chapter 3: (4) 

Jas. l:6=Mt. 21:21; Mk . 11:23 the prayer of faith without 

Jas. l:22-25=Mt. 7:24-27; Lk . 6:47-49 being doers of the 

Jas. 3:12=:Mt. 7:16; Lk , 6:44 employing fruit tree imagery 

to express the impossibility of an event 
Jas. 5:10-lla=Mt. 5:11,12b; Lk . 6; 22,23b blessed are those 

who endure 

b) listed in Appendix I: (2) 

Jas. i:12=Mt, 5:ll~12a; Lk . 6:22-23a blessed are those who 

endure trials 
Jas, l:17=Mt, 7:11; Lk . 11:13 God the Father gives good 


4) Parallels of terminology: (9} 

a. j .J- J, 53 x f Ci -Li I L. Help iZ fcx o: { '^.J i 

b) listed in Appendix I: (9) 

Jas. l:21=Mt. 13:19-23; Lk . 8:11-15 AoyoQ able to save; 

ep.(puvcc, and (pu(j 
Jas. 2:15=Mt. 25:36,41 naked and hungry 
Jas. 4:4a--Mt. 12:39a; 16:4a; Mk. 8:38 adulteresses 
Jas. 4 : 8~Mt . 5:8 purifying the heart 
Jas, 4:12=Mt, 10:28 save and destroy 

Jas. 4:17=:Lk.. 12:47 knowing something but not doing it 
Jas. 5 : 9a=:Mt , 7:1 that you may not be judged 
Jas. 5:9b=Mt. 24:33b; Mk , 13:29b at the doors 
Jas, 5:17=Lk, 4:25 three years and six months 

5) Parallels of content: (12) 

a) listed in chapter 3: (7) 

Jas. l:2=Mt. 5;ll-12a; Lk . 6:22-23a joy in tribulation 
Jas. 1 : 4-~Mt . 5:48 be perfect 

Jas. l:19b-20=Mt. 5:22a exhortation against anger 
Jas. 2:13=Mt. 5:7 being merciful results in mercy 


Jas . 3:18=Mt. 5:9 peacemakers 

Jas , 4 : 4~Mt . 6 ; 24 ; Lk . 16 : 13 serving two masters 

Jas . 4;H-12~Mt. 7:l-~2a; Lk . 6:37 against judging 

b} listed in Appendix I; (5) 

Jas. l;12=Mt. 10:22 endurance 

Jas. 2:12=Mt. 5:19 a restricting of the law 

Jas, 2:14=-Mt, 7:21; Lk. 6:46 faith and works 

Jas. 5;6=Lk, 6; 37b; Mt . 12:7,37 judgment according to works 

Jas. 5:14=Mk. 6:13 anointing with oil 

6) Common source: (1) 

Jas. 2:8 and Mt , 22:39-40 par.=Lev. 19:18b 

1.2 We have detected eight conscious allusions to the Synop- 
tic gospels' in the Epistle of James. One could also attempt to 
locate extra-canonical sayings of Jesus within the Epistle of 
James'* or delve into the parallels with the Gospel of John,"* but 
those projects lie outside the bounds of this .study. Compared 
with the short length of JaiTie.s' epistle and the relative 
infrequency in which sayings of Jesus are alluded to in the NT 
epistles, the presence of eight allusions is not insignificant. 
However, the primary parallels are those of common theme or sub- 
ject matter rather thain intended allusion or citation. Furthei'- 

^ James H. Ropes, Die SprUche Jesu die in den kanoni_schen 
Evangelien ni_cli t ube_rj_i ef erjt s_i nd , 3 7-33,40-41,75-7 6,124 disputes 
Resch's claim that Jas. 1:12; 4:5; 4:7; and 5:20 are extra- 
canonical sayings of Jesus. Jas. 1:12 has received the most 
attention with Adamson, J§5is.s , 68; Mayor, djl,ieS/ 47; n. 1; 
Oesterley, "James," 427; Resch, Agrap^ha, 253; and Vos, .Synopt__i_c 
Xll^^lliisyiS .in l£.o£.§J:YP^ ®. ' 192 claiming that the logion of 
Jesus is iDeing alluded to at 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet, 5:4; Rev. 2:10. 
In our opinion a common paraenetic tradition is being rehersed 
since Jas. 5:11 repeats the same teaching and the crown is 
described differently in each passage. The relationship of Jas. 
5:20 to the OT has been examined in oh. 2, section 3.6, 

5jas, l:17 = Jn. 3:3; 1:18=6:39 and 17:17; 1 : 1 8 , 25=--^8 : 31-32 ; 
1:22=8:47; 1:25 and 4:17=13:17; 2:1=5:44; 2:10=7:19; 5:20=5:24; 
4:4=15:19 where Chaine, JaciHiss, LXVIII hypothesizes dependence. 
For lists of parallels see PInowling, Ja^iiies, xxiii-xxiv and Mof- 
fatt. Historical NT, 578, 


more, it is not true, as many have erroneously suggested, 6 that 
the Epistle of James contaiRS more allusions to the Synoptic 
tradition than any of the other NT epistles. Paul alludes to the 
logia of Jesus betiAjeen eight and twenty-four times, while 1 Peter 
echoes twelve sayings of Jesus, '^ James is in approximately the 
same vicinity with eight allusions. The book of Revelation prob- 
ably possesses the most allusions to the sayings of Jesus with 
about tv^enty-five examples, 8 

It is difficult to determine with any certainty how James 
received the sayings of Jesus, Commentators who postulate an 
authorship by James, the brother of Jesus, favor the view that 
James heard the preaching with his ovvn' Yet the antagonism 
of Jesus' brothers to his ministry (Mk. 3:21,31; Jn. 7:5) and the 
divergent wording of the sayings from the Synoptic tradition clo 
not support this thesis. A few scholars contend that Jam,es util- 
ized the Gospel of Matthew either through the hearing of it read 
in worship services or by reading the; Greek version itself, ^^' We 
have shovm in chapter 4 that this hypothesis is indef en.sible . 
The solution which best coincides with the form of the sayings as 
well as the particular genre of James is the thesis that the 
author was transmitting the paraenetic tradition of the church 
which included both specific sayings of Jesus and ethical themes 

^Cf , oh. 1, section 2.1. 
"^Cf. ch. 5, section 2.2. 

°Cf . Vos, .Sy;no£_t_ic Tradi_t_icms i_n Apo_c_a lygse , 218-219. 
^Cf . ch . 1, sections 3,1 and 3.8. 

■^^Cf. Shepherd, "James and Matthew," 47; Gryglewicz, 
"Jacques et Matthieu," 55 respectively. 


extracted from Jesus' preaching. The words of Jesus could be 
said to be "in the? air".^--^ 

The development of certain sayings displays the hand of 
the church applying Jesus' v-^ords to new situations which emerged 
as salvation history moved onward. When the church prays with 
wrong motives to satis^fy their own pleasures (4:3) or demon- 
strates double-mindedness instead of faith (1;5~8), then Jesus' 
saying about confidence in prayer ("ask and you will receive") is 
no longer applicable. The eschatological mourning and weeping of 
Lk. 6:25 is applied to the present state of the church in Jas . 
4:9, a sign according to Jeremias of a later development in the; 
sayings of Jesus , 1 2 The additional contrast (poor in worldly 
goods vs. rich in faith) inserted into the promise of the kingdom 
to the poor in Jas. 2:5 (--Mt. 5:3) displays the experience of the 
church as witnessed by 1 Cor. 1:27, Furthermore, the fact that 
most of the Jamesian pc^rallels derive from the Sermon on the 
Mount/ Plain reveals that James chose the sayings of Jesus which 
were grouped together to serve the paraenetic needs of the 
church, ^3 -phg, popularity of the Gospel of Matthew in the early 
church is most surely caused by the fact that the Matthean dis- 
courses provided paraenetic material to serve the church in 
establishing her ethical teachings. The Epistle of James is 
intended to meet this identical need and thus consists largely of 

-'■■'■Davies, Setting, 404. 

-'•^Jeremias , "The Hortatory Use of the Parables," Parables, 
of Jesu s, 42-48, 

-'•'^In Did. 1:2-2:1 and Justin's 1 Ajgol. 15-17 we encou.nter 
this same phenomenon. 


short exhortations grouped together by catchwords as in the Mat- 
thean discourses, 

1.3 In addition to allusions to specific sayings of Jesus, we 
also encounter in the Epistle of James certain themes from the 
preaching of Jesus which have been incorporated into the 
paraenetic teaching tradition of the church. 

1) joy in tribulation (Jas. 1:2; 5:10~lla; Mt , 5:ll-12a; Lk . 
6 : 22-23a) ; 14 

2) faith and doubting (Jas. 1:6; Mt . 21:21; Mk. 11:23; 

3) exhortations against anger (Jas. 1:19-20; Mt . 5 


4 6-49; 

4) hearing and doing (Jas. 1:22-25; Mt . 7:24-26; Lk . 6 
8:21) and faith and action (Jas. 2:14; Mt . 7:21; Lk . 6:46); 

5) the love commandment (Jas, 2:8; Mt , 22:39; Mk , 12:31; Lk . 
1 vO : 2 7 ) ; ^ ^ 

6) mercy (Jas, 2:13; Mt , 5:7; 9:13; 12:7; 18:33; 23:23; 1 CI. 
13:2; Pol , Phi 1 , 2 : 3 ) ; 1 ? 

7) serving God vs. loving the world (Jas. 4:4; Lk , 16:13; 
Mt , 6 :24) ; 18 

8) refreiining from judging (Jas. 4:11-12; 5:9; Mt , 7:1; Lk . 
6:37) ; 

9) those who persevere in trial will receive a blessing (.Jas. 
1:12; 5:10-lla; Mt . 5:ll-12a; 10:22; Lk . 6:22-23a), 

The simiLar it ies with the Synoptic tradition indicate 

that the church adopted the important themes of the preaching of 

Jesus and employed them as a foundation for its ethical 

paraenesis. The divergencies are explained by the fact that 

I'^This catechetical tradition was also developed in FaDin. 
5:3-5 and 1 Pet. 1:6. 

I'^This ethical tradition is also developed in Did. 3:2-3, 
a section inserted into the Two Ways of Did. 1-6, in passages 
describing the qualifications of leaders (Tit. 1:7; Pol. 6:1), 
and by Paul in Eph . 4:26,31. Tliis example is placed hesitantly 
into our list since this theme could just as easily have entered 
the church's paraenesis through Jewish wisdom. Cf. chapter 3, 
section 2.6. 

l^This also becomes the ethical heart of Paul's teaching 
at Rom. 13:8-10 and Gal, 5:14. Cf. also Did. 1:2, 

l^Since a multitude of parallels are also encountered in 
Jewish literature (cf. ch . 3, section 3.3) and mercy is a Mat- 
thean theme, the background could also be .Jewish wisdom. 


15; 2 Tim. 3:4. 

Cf. also 1 Jn. 2:15-17; Rom. 8:7-9; Gal, 5:16-26; 6:14- 

these themes were developed in the individual author's own v>?ords 
and directed at unique situations. Thus James describes doubting 
by referring to "a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by 
the wind'^ (1:6) rather than through Jesus' imagery of a mountain 
(Mt. 21:21; Mk . 11:23) or a mulberry tree (Lk. 17:6) cast into 
the sea. James pictures hearing without doing by the analogy of 
peering into a mirror and forgetting immediately what one has 
seen rather than Jesus' verbal portrait of wise and foolish 
people building homes upon rock and sand. Both Jesus and James 
call attention to the blessedness of those who endure tribula- 
tion, but Jesus condemns Israel's persecution of the prophets 
(!Mt, 5:12; Lk . 6:23) while James exalts the prophets as perfect 
examples ( Jas . 5:10). This development of the themes of Jesus' 
preaching while employing different imagery and unique emphases 
explains the perceptive observation of various exegetes who state 
that "the imagery belongs to James, but the thoughts are .more of 
Jesus,"*" or again "James says less about the Master than any 
other writer in the NT, but his :3peech is more like that of the 
Master than the speech of any one of them. "20 The double use of 
the preaching of Jesus in the paraenesis of the church (i.e. as 
allusions and as themes derived from Jesus' teaching) explains 
both the similarities and the differences between the sayings of 
Jesus and the exhortations of James. Thus the Jesus-tradition 
forms the foundational rule of conduct for the early church by 
providing both specific logia and the thematic raw material for 

-^^Michaels, "James ~- The Royal Law," 332. 
20Doremus k. Hayes, 'hJames, Ep. of," _ISBE/ 1564 

- 3 8 8 ■- 

the church's ethical paraenesis . 21 

1.4 We have concluded in chapter 4 that the Epistle of James 
is an independent witness to the sayings of the Jesus-tradition. 
James does not employ our Synoptic gospe;ls; instead his epistle 
witnesses to an additional coromunity for which the ethical teach- 
ings of Jesus were influential. Was James awsire of any preSynop- 
tic collections of the se*yinv3s of Jesus? Knowledge of Q is a 
possibility since four out of James' eight allusions are drawn 
fx-om Q material. Howevei" , in one case the saying ( Jas . 2:5) 'is 
closer to the Lucan recension ( Lk . 6:20b) while in a second 
instance (Jas, 5:2--3a) it could either be derived from Matthew's 
source M {Mt. 6:19-20) or the Lucan recension of Q (Lk. 12:33b). 
Streeter postulates that James has read Q in the recension known 
to Luke,'<^'==' yet the inclusion of M material in James (Jas, 
5:12=Mt. 5:33-~3 7) as well as similar development of themes 
between James and Matthew makes this hypothesis highly remote and 
definitely unnecessary. Shepherd's assessment that the Epistle 
of Jasnes is closer to the Matthean interpretation of q23 over- 
looks the Instances where James matches Luke both in tone and 

^^Davies, Setting, 404 probably had this in mind when he 
explained that the words of Jesus "moulded the life of the 
Christian community both indirectly by supplying, on occasion, 
specific halakah as in Jas. 5:12, and indirectly by supplying a 
climate of and a form for a ^Christian' moral awareness." 

^^streeter, P rimitive Church, 183. 

23shepherd, "James and Matthev?, " 44-45. He cites Jas. 
1:6,17,22-25,26-27; 4:13-14; 5:2-3 as closer to Matthew, but only 
the last instance is a true allusion to a gospel saying. Hartin, 
.J§i]l§.§, §-Li§. ,Q' 150 claims that the reference to "heirs of the king- 
dom" in Jas. 2:5 demonstrates an amalgamation of Mt . 5:3,5, but 
the expression "to inherit the kingdom" is ecclesiastical lan- 
guage (Gal. 5:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50) and Mt . 5:5 employs the 
terminology of Ps. 37:11. 

i p. 9 ■- 

language.^-'' Therefore, no conclusive support for a knowledge of Q 
can be derived from the Epistle of James. 25 someone might ar'gue 
that James was aware of the M tradition since Janies ' most obvious 
allusion (Jas. 5:12) is only found in the Gospel of Matthev^ 
(5:33-37). Yet we have demonstrated, that ce;rtaln striking dis- 
similarities between Jas, 5:12 and Mt . 5:33-37 confirm that the 
Biblical writers employed two separate traditions which Justin 
Martyr in his characteristic fashion harmonized . ^6 However, the; 
identical themes of mercy, meekness, righteousness, purity of 
heart, and peacemaking in the beatitudes of MattheV'j emd the 
exhortations of James as well as the common theology of the l3.w, 
perfection, and faith and works might point to a concentrated 
area of Jewish population such as greater Palestine where the M 
traditions were transmitted with various emphases by the Individ- 
u a 1 c o mmu n i t i e s . 2 7 

A more fruitful investigation might concentrate on dis- 
cerning preSynoptic blocks of materia.1 which were orally trans- 
m i 1 1 e d . R e s e a r c h h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d that P au 1 d raw f r o m s u c h 
preexistent blocks of material as Lk. 6:27-39, Lk . 10:1-16, and 
Mk. 9:33-50 and 1 Peter utilized Lk. 12:32-45 and Lk. 6:20b-"38 as 
well as certain isolated sayings of Jesus. 28 pgg contend that 
James displays familiarity with a list of beatitudes as well as 

2'^Cf, ch. 4, section 3.1. 

^^Davies' suggestion ( S.§ 1 1. in^jL 403) that the eschato- 
logical (rather than the catechetical) nature of Q explains why 
James did not employ this sayings source cannot be pro^/en. 

^^Bellinzoni , Sayings of Jesus in Jus tin , 139-141. 

2'^Cf. ch, 4, the end of section 3.2 and 3.4-3.7, 

28cf, ch, 5, section 3,6. 


woes.'-9 Although James and M contain common themes, the only 
unmistakable allusions tc the beatitudes bear the closest resem- 
blance to Lxike (Jas, 2;5-Lk. 6:20b concerning the poor; Jas . 
4:9=-Lk. 6:21 about those who weep). It is enlightening to real- 
ize that JajEes also contains 3. pair of woes in common with Luke. 
In fact, God's promise of a kingdom for the poor found in James' 
second discussion of wealth (2:5-7) is balanced with the cor- 
responding claim that eschatological miseries are coming upon the 
rich in James' third pericope about wealth (5:1-6). This is 
parallel to Luke's double reference to a beatitude (6:20) and woe 
(6:24) against the rich. Although the contexts in James are sepa- 
rated by several discourses, it is customary for James to revert 
to previous themes, ^0 ^^^^^^ ^.^^ ^-^^^ occasion he even repeats a 
saying of Jesus on the subject of answered prayer (1:5; 4:3). 
Furthermore, the expected application of the beatitude to the 
Christian community and the woe to the wicked world is reversed 
when James applies the woe of Lk . 6:25b to the Christian com- 
munity, exhorting them to mourn and weep and change their 
laughter into repentant sorrow (Jas. 4:9). The placing of a woe 
upon those who would normally expect a blessing indicates that 
JajBes knew both a, beatitude and a curse against those who laugh. 
The Epistle of Jamies offers some proof that Luke was not the only 

29james does not employ the terms p.aKaptoQ and oucfi as 
Luke does, yet we have argued in ch, 3, sections 4.3 and 4,4 that 
the natunre of the sayings is similar even though these specific 
terms are m.issing, 

"^^Cf . the tventh characteristic of paraenesis in ch. 5, 
section 3.5. 


author to place the woes alongside the beatitudes . 31 Matthew's 
redact ionary ireason for omitting the woes in the Sermon on the 
Mount"'^''- rnay he^ve been motivated by a desire to include only 
paraenetic material which was easily a.pplicable to the church. 
Thus the woes in Matthew are aimed against the scribes and 
Pharisees (Mt. 23) and not directed at the disciples as in Lk. 
6:20"-26, James demonstrates creativity by de-eschatologizing 
these woes and applying them to God's chosen people as a dis- 
ciplinary call to repentance. Thus, even though the sayings of 
Jesus in James' epistle are of an allusionary nature and. there- 
fore somev-^hat unhelpful in determining the original wording of a 
saying of Jesus, they do provide indications of the e^xtent of 
James' knowledge of the Jesus-tradition, 

1.5 I'he sayings of Jesus were foundational for two genre of 
literature -~ the gospel and church paraenesis. How did these 
two streams of literature employ the sayings of the Jesus- 
tradition differently? It is evident from the Epistle of James, 
the paraenetic sections of Paul ( esp . Rom. 12-13 and 1 Thess. 5), 
and Did, 1:3-2:1 that allusions rather than citations are the 
customary means of transmitting the sayings of Jesus in parae- 
nesis. Thus the form of the sayings differ in the two genre. 
Therefore we cannot label the Epistle of James a fifth gospel as 

■^-^It is disputed whether the woes were originally found 
in Q since the final beatitude provides a better bridge than the 
woes to the next section on love of enemies, 

^^For Matthew's knowledge of the woes see Gundry, |fet~ 
thew, 68f. 

suggested by Patry in his 1899 dissertation and Hasle^hurst in his 
article on the gospel material in James. 33 

Secondly, the purpose for alluding to the Jesus-trsidition 
is different in the genres of gospel and paraenesis. The primary 
purpose of the gospels is to rehearse what Jesus said and did in 
such a way that the teaching of Jesus becomes the end product. 
For pars^enesis, on the other hand, the sayings of Jesus are only 
the raw neater ial which provide the themes and vocabulary neces- 
sary to develop an ethical tradition which can be applied to each 
new context which the church encounters. In Jas. 4:3, for exam- 
ple, Jesus' saying that those who ask will receive is shown not 
to apply to situcitions when people desire answered prayers to 
Scitisfy their own lust for pleasure. 

Thirdly, there is greater freedom in paraenesis to trans- 
mit the sayings of Jesus with the author's own words and unique 
emphases of theology. Thus Jesus' same promise of answered 
prayer is attached to James' favorite theine of Vv'isdom (1:5-6; 
3:13-18) so that Jesus' word is now addressed to those who lack 
wisdom (1:5), The sexying about the exaltation of the humble 
(Jas. 4:10) is transmitted apart from the parallel statement that 
the exalted will be brought low since the rewarding of the humble 
is the special emphasis of Jas. 4:6-10. James' paraenetic intent 
is apparent here when the gospel saying is changed into the sec- 
ond person plural address familiar to paraenesis, Finally, 
James' distinctive term "be wretched" is inserted into two woes 

^'"'Patry, Jacijues, 112; Haslehurst, "The Fifth Gospel," 
esp. 102-103. 

~ '5 O "^^ - 

from the Jesus-tradition (4:9; 5:1) and his common address "my 
(beloved) brethren" i£3 employed to introduce two gospel allusions 
(2:5; 5:12). All of these alterations are allowable v?ithin, the 
paraenetlc tradition since its primary purpose is not the preser- 
vation of Jesus' words but the practical need of the church for 
ethical exhortations. This does not entail that the Jesus- 
tradition within paraenesis was ever emerging, constantly 
altered, and nonauthor itat ively transmitted while the gospels 
remained standa^rd and fixed. There is flexibility in the midst 
of a well-defined core of teaching, redaction alongside tradi- 
tion, in both of these genre. Yet as to degree, a much greater 
freedom to alter, add to, and apply the established traditions is 
found in paraenesis , 3'^^ Paraenesis, as distinct from the genre of 
gospel, both alludes to specific sayings and employs the themes 
of Jesus' preaching to develop th,6:- Christian's moral £iwa.reness , 
The exegete who does not distinguish between these two usages 
will discern in the Epistle of James countless allusions to the 
sayings of Jesus when in reality only certain themes of Jesus' 
pi^eaching are developed quite separately from the precise words 
which he spoke. While admitting the importance of the sayings of 
Jesus to James' teaching, we have argued against an overestimia- 
tion of the role these sayings played in James' theology. 

^■^Cf. Allen Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the 
New Testament , 71: "In the paraenetlc tradition that evolved, the 
early church began the continuing task of assimilating, trans- 
forming, and fulfilling the moral wisdom of its time." 

-39 4- 

If indeed two means of ti'ansmitting the sayings of Jesus'; 
need to be distinguished --gospvel and parae»nes is , 35 v^hat role 
does the authority of Jesus play in each stream? In the Epistle 
of James the sayings of the Jesus-tradition function differently 
from the OT citations. James quotes the OT to authoritatively 
ground his arguments: 1) at 2:8,11 James effiploys Lev, 19; 18b and 
the D€?calogue to argue against partiality; 2) the citation of 
Gen. 15:6 at Jas. 2 : 2v3 proves that Abraham was jijistlfied by 
works; 3) an unknown scripture at 4:5 substantiates James' claim 
that friendship with the world is contrary to the divine inten- 
tion; and 4) the quoting of Prov. 3:34 at 4:6 demonstrates that 
God gives more grace to the humble. On the other hand, James 
does not designate Jesus' sayings as scripture nor are they 
appealed to in order to authoritatively ground his arguments. It 
is not the formal authority of Jesus' sayings but rather the 
materisal authority that is critical. The sanctifying effect of 
Jesus' words upon people's lives gav-^e these sayings authority; 
the emphasis of paraenesis is always practical. 

The paraenesis of collects miaterial from many m.ul- 
tifarious sources: the traditional language of Judaism and the 
OT, the sayings and themes of Jesus' preaching, everyday reli- 
gious maxims and wisdom sayings, analogies from nature, logical 
arguments, apostolic teaching, and the author's own thoughts. No 
single strand (i.e. the sayings of Jesus) supplies the needed 

^^Supported by Allison, "Pauline Epistles and Synoptic 
Gospels," 23; Piper, L o ve Your E n e m i e s , 139,134; Leonhard Gop- 
pelt, "Jesus und die ■" Haustaf el ' -Tradition , " Oriej)dy^erung_ari 
Jesus, 93-106. 

-39 5^ 

authority and inspii-'at ion ; instead the interaction and combina- 
tion of all these factors form the authoritative teaching of the 
church. We therefore disagree with David's contention that the 
allusionis to the Jesus-tradition are the basic authority behind 
almost every section of James' moral teaching. He claims that "of 
22 sections in the Epistle 15 have close allusions, 5 others 
~ possible' allusions and the 2 remaining ones have less verbally 
exact parallels in the narrati\?e and sayings tradition . "36 on the 
other hand, i>ie can only substantiate eight instances where James 
alludess to sayings of Jesus, and these are £?ituated priinarity in 
his more gene»ral paraenetic sections where short exhortations 
dominate. In the discourses located in 2: 1-3; 12 logical argu- 
ments, analogies from nature, and OT citations dominate. 
Throughout the epistle Jesus' sayings are intertwined with 
James's o'wn terminology and related maxims from Jewish wisdom and 
, do not by themselves provide the ground of authority for James' 
teaching. This identical' phenomenon is evident in Rom, 12:14,17 
and 1 Thess. 5:13,15 where allusions to sayings of Jesus do not 
substantiate Paul's teaching nor give authority to his ideas. 
Rather a whole group of exhortations, one after another, are 
presented with each one able to stand on its own authority. That 
is the nature of paraenesis. Only when Paul is dealing with 
specific moral problems such as divorce (and not the general 
exhortations indigenous to paraeneis) will he appeal to the 
gospel tradition and the formal authority which the sayings of 

•^"Davids, "James and Jesus," 69-70, Cf. Adamson, J,§.i5es_L 
li§Ii_§,?15L Ji§.s§.§_ge , 163; Shepherd, "James and Matthev*?, " 41-42. 

O .'5 O 

Jesus there possessed. J ^ Thus the sayings of Jesus had authority 

in. themselves when the gospel tradition was cited, but in 

paraenesis its authority derived from the fact that it was the 

teaching of the church which in its totality was inspired by the 

Holy Spirit . 3S 

Implications for the Importance of Genre 
in the Interpi'etation of Scripture 

2.1 Dibelius is renowned, for his categorization of the 

Epistle of James as paraenesis, but he has misrepresented its 

importance by assigning to almost every problera of this^ epistle 

the solution of paraenesis . 39 Yet we should not allow a misuse of 

the importance of genre to cause us to underestimate the role 

played by paraenesis in the Epistle of James, The genre 

explains, first of all, the form of the sayings of Jesus. ,As we 

have explained earlier, the allusionary character of quotations 

is inherent to paraenesis. No introductory formulations are 

employed, and the wording of the saying is strongly governed by 

the author's ov-^n. vocabulary. This influence of paraenesis upon 

the sayings of Jesus should not surprise us since the writer of 

the apocalypse also allows his genre to influence the form of the 

sayings of Jesus. As Vos explains, "While the Apocalyptist often 

couches such sayings in apocalyptic dress, the actual forms of 

the promises themselves display much similarity with the sayings 

^■^Cf. ch . 5, the end of section 3,6. 

■^^Dibelius, Tradition to Gospel , 241 states, "Thus all of 
them appeared as exhortations "in the Lord', if not as exhorta- 
tions 'of the Lord' ." Cf , Hahn, "Begriindung urchrist licher 
Paranese, " 89 . 

''^®Cf. ch . 1, section 3.5 for specifics. 

of Jesus as they have been recorded in the Synoptics . "40 j-jgt ais 
the Lord speaks to his church through the inspired prophet in the 
book of Revelation , '*1 so Jesus Christ spe^aks through the wisdom 
of the church in the genre of paraenesis. Just as the Apocalyp- 
tist "does not hesitate to .adapt the themes and expressions to 
the apocalyptic forru/"*^ so James does not hesitate to adapt the 
sayings of Jesus; to the paraenetic form. Just as the apocalyptic 
sayings play a prominent role in the book of Revelation, ^^ qq f^^ 
ethical exhortations of Jesus play a major role in the p3.raenesis 
of James. The Epistle of James does not refer to Jesus as risen 
savior, Son of God, or exalted Son of Man, but the appeal to the 
wisdom sayings of Jesus indicates that Jesus, the teacher of wis- 
dom, is standing in the background behind the paraenesis of 
James. Thus in paraenetic literature the threefold anointing of 
Christ as prophet, priest, and king is expanded into a fourfold 
anointing including that of teacher of wisdom. 

2.% The almost complete omission of Christology in the 

Epistle of James has been variously explained; 

1) Some believe that the» omission of Christological references 
and the lack of development with regard to specifically Christian 
theology is an. indication of an early date of composition; '*4 

■* ^ V o s , Synoptic Traditi ons in the Apocalypse , 217. 

^^Sayings found in the third person in the gospels are 
placed in the prophetic first person in the Apocalypse: Rev. 3:3 
(Mt. 24:42-43), 3:5 ( Mt . 10:32), 3:20 (Mt, 24:33), 3:21 (Mt. 
19:28), 16:15 (Mt. 24:42-43), and 22:12 (Mt. 16:27). 

■* 2 vo s , Synoptic Traditions in the Apocalypse , 216. 

^^Rev. 1:6; ch. 6 ( c f . Vos ' diagram on p. 186); 11:26; 
13:13; 14:6,14-19. 

^ "^^ R e n d a 1 1 , James and Judaic Christianity , 8 8,108; 
Rob inson , Hed^.iil3 ' 12 3-124; Davi ds , James , 22. 


2) Others like Spitta and Massebieau have used the paucity of 
Christology and the events of Jesus' life to postulate a Jewish 
origin to the Epistle of James ;'45 

3) A third position peerceives the solution in James' evangelistic 
method. 46 instead of overtly pressing the claims of Christ's 
words or redemptive actions, James attempts to conciliate non- 
Christian Jews and remove objections to the new way by demon- 
strating the effect of this faith on conduct. 

4) Tasker connects the lack of Christology with the problem of 
authorship stating that Jesus' own brother Vvould not stress 
Christology. ^"^ 

5) Adamson believes that the sparseness of Christology is depend- 
ent upon the conditions under which James was written* i.e. "in a 
hostile enviromaent and at a time when Christianity was a forbid- 
den religion and proselytizing (or even the hint of it) vjas 
unlawful. "48 

6) Riesenfeld appeals to the holiness of the gospel tradition and 
to the assumption that the Jesus-tradition was in James' 

^^Cf. ch, 1, section 3.4. 

"^^Cadoux, Tho u^hjt__,of_ James , 88, Moule, Birth of NT, 219; 
James H. Moulton, "The Epistle of James and the Sayings of 
Jesus," Ex 7,4(1907): 54, 

^^Tasker, James_, 28. 

4 ^Adamson , James: Man and Message , 2 2 2,10. 

'^^Riesenfeld, Gospel Tradition and Beginnings , 2 3. "Here 
we have the reason why the words and deeds of Jesus were probably 
never quoted verbally in the missionary preaching and only on 
rare occasions in the community instruction. The tradition which 
was recited was holy and hence, in contrast to present-day prac- 
tice, was not readily mentioned by word of mouth. Mission 
preaching, indeed, pointed and led to it. The instruction in the 
community presuppossed it and linked itself up with it. But in 
its verbal form, in its Sitz im Leben in the community, it was 


7) We choose rather for the vievj that the genre of paraenesis 
explains the unusually slim amount of references to ChristologY 
and Christ's life and work. Paraenesis is ethical teaching 
emphasizing the human respsonse to the gospel and not the kerygraa 
itself. Therefore the kerygma surfaces only momentarily in the 
Elpistle of vTaines at 1:18 ("of his own will he brought us forth by 
the word of truth") and 1:21b ("receive with meekness the 
Implanted word v^/hich is able to save your souls"). Then 
immediately in 1:22 the human response to' the kerygma is again 
emphasized by utilizing the same term Ac5yo(;, "But be doers of the 
word." The Epistle of James is ethical throughout. Even near 
the e>nd of the book when he deals with eschatology (5:7-11) and 
questions of church, order (5:12-20), the ethical implications of 
eschatology (patience, waiting steadfastly, no grumbling) and the 
ethical demands of the church order (not swearing, praying, con- 
fession of sins) are emphasized, Therefort?, a Christological 
section, is not necessary in a Christian paraenetic writing. 

Yet it is not inherent to paraenesis that Christology is 
omitted. Paul has ingeniously grounded his ethics upon the sal- 
vation events of Christ's life. In his personal ethics Paul 
bases his moral teaching upon the union of the believer with the 
death of Christ (Eph. 4:22ff; Col. 2:20ff) and his resurrection 
(Col. 3:lff), In social relationships within the Haustafeln we 
repeatedly encounter the phrases "as to the Lord" ( wc "5 Kupiu 
Eph. 5:21; Col. 3:23; bq tO Xp iCJZi^ Eph. 6:5; WQ avriKSv ev Kup LW 
Col. 3:18) or "in the Lord" (ei.' KVp'iu) Col. 2:20), Likewise, 1 
Peter includes the example of Christ v>?hich believers should fol- 


low (1 Pet. 2: 21-25). 50 j^ t:he Epistle of Jarnes , however, only 
the example of OT chai-acters such as Abraham (2:21-24), Rahab 
(2:25), the prophets (5:10), Job (5:11), and Elijah (5:17) are 
highlighted. There is no attempt in James to constuct a moral 
theology around specifically Christological claims. Instead we 
find the moral virtues of love (2:8) and wisdom (.3:13-18) held up 
as norms along with the ethical precepts of the law, which now 
become the law of freedom under the influence of Christian 
reinterpretation. If there is any core or governing principle to 
James' moral theology, 5^ it is this last point concerning the 
perfect (1:25), royal (2:8) law of liberty (1:25; 2: 12). 52 japes' 
paraenesis consists of moral obligations vdilch follow from a 
Christian rendering of the ancient Jewish law. Yet nowhere in 
the Epistle of James does one perceive the personal iz3.t ion of the 
ethical tradition a:5 is so prevalent in Paul, In Paul the I~Thou 
relationship provides the foundation for the ethical demand. The 
mystery for Paul is that the demands of God have been fulfilled 

50pQp g description of Peter's manner of grounding the 
imperative in the indicative of the kerygma, see Eduard Lohse , 
"Paranese und Kerygro.a im 1 Petrusbr ief , " ZNW 45(1954): 68-89. 
Paul also grounds his exhortation to selflessness on the example 
of Jesus^in Phil, 2; 1-11. 

^^ -^Sophie S. Laws, "The Doctrinal Basis for the Ethics of 
James," SE, 7:301 believes that the oneness of God governs the 
development of James' ethics although she admits (p. 304) that 
there are no examples in current thought indicating that God's 
oneness was a quality able to be imitated. Verhey, Great_ Rever- 
sal 133 believes that "if there is any theological basis'to' be 
discerned in James, it seems to be the memory of Jesus' proclama- 
tion of a 'great reversal'." However, this is much more obvious 
in Jesus' preaching than it is in James' ethical exhortations. 
J.L. Houlden, Ethics and the New Testament, 66 and Jack Sanders, 
Eiili£S' 12 6, on the other hand, contend that no theological 
impulse overtly provides the ethics of James with backing. 

'^^The word "law" occurs ten ti.mes in the epistle: 1:25; 
2:8,9,10,11,12; 4:11 (4x). 


in the person of Jesus, He is the source of life, wisdom, 
righteousness, and sanctif ication (1 Cor. .1:30), For James the 
I-it relationship is dominate. The Christian is impinged upon by 
a code of aioral behavior which he must obey and is capable of 
obeying. This difference h3.s justifiably accounted for the 
greater impact of Paul's theology upon the chuirch ' s moral teach- 
ing. Yet it must not be forgotten that the paraenesis of James 
is also the wisdom of God. His proclamation of a persona.l and 
social righteousness which permeates the very fabric of huma.n 
nature and cultural develop.ment v^^ill always be relevant. 

Thus the Epistle of James is a witness to the importance 
of genre in the interpretation of scripture. The presence of 
paraenesis best accounts for the form of the sayings of Jesus, 
the lack of Christologyr and the overlap between Jewish and 
Christian ideas. 53 iT.|.^g, title of the Epistle of James could in 
fact be more appropriately called the Para.enesis of James. Our 
study has shown that the sayings of the Jesus-tradition could 
find a home in every genre which the NT produced -- not only in 
the gospels, epistles, and apocalyptic literature of the early 
church, but also embedded in the collection of ethical exhorta- 
tions which we call the paraenetic tradition. 

^■-Cf. Dibelius, Traditi on to G ospel, 240 for a suggestion 
on how Jewish wisdom and the sayings of Jesus became the two main 
sources for paraenesis. 


Appendix I 






Total Number 
of Sayings 
























5 . 


185 3 

13 5-137 

2 6 


Hut her 









8 . 


18 69 


2 4 








18 7 2 

2 6 3-264 


1 1 . 

Bruckner 3 




12 . 





1 3 . 





14 . 


18 79 



1 H 
J, o ( 


1 8 8 2 



16 . 

von So den'* 




1 7 . 




18 . 







189 2 

1 KKK i 1 '- 1 XXX i V 

.1 Kxx i V ~ 1 XXXV i 


Blom ' s 
than 5 

-"There appears to be a typographical error 
work where Jas. 2:4 is identified with Mt , 



195 of 

are included 


^Since Holtsmann does not mention the gospel references 
in his 1871 article in Schenkel 's B 1 be 1 -Lex icon, we have included 
the most likely possibilities. We cannot identify which parallel 
was in Holtzmann 's mind at Jas. 3:17, and concerning Jas. 2:13-16 
we can only identify Jas. 2:13=Mt. 5:7. 

■^Briickner ' s less probable references 
parenthesis . 

^In a footnote von Soden lists as doubtful 
6:24; 1:12 and 5:ll=Mt. 10:22; 1 : 4==Mt . 5:48. 

■^Weizsacker offers three lists: 1) a group of 
saturated with the words of Jesus; 2) sayings of doubtful 
ter (marked with parenthesis); 3) sayings definitely belonging to 
a later time (marked with a double parenthesis). 

^Mayor's less important parallels, unstarred in his list, 
are here put in parenthesis. 

Jas. 4:4=-Mt. 








21 . 







5 28 






B , We 1 s s 









19 3 





2 3 


Know ling 




Fulf ord^ 

19 06 






q 1 
O J, , 



181-18 2 

o o 




O .,5 . 








3 5 . 



and Greeven 

1 9 6 4 








1927; 1955 

417-418; 342 

38 . 


1 9 2 7 








194 4 


4- 1 

McNei lie 



4 2 , 




S '^ 






1 9 5 6 



ijohse-'- " 






2 2 











Spitta dismisses each parallel as invalid. At Jas . 1:20 
Spitta's reference to Mt , 6:23 should be corrected to Mt . 6:33, 

^Plurnptre only refers to parallels with the Sermon on the 
Mount . 

"'Fulford's less important parallels are placed, in 
parenthesis. He adds three parallels from the Gospel of John: 
Jas. l:17=Jn, 3:3; l:25=Jn. 8:31-33; 4:17-Jn, 13:17, 

^'■'-'Chaine ' s list includes three categories: 1) general 
reminiscences to the gospels (marked by parenthesis); 2) probable 
dependence on the saying-s of Jesus (no marking); 3) certain 
dependence upon the sayings of Jesus (in.a-rked by a star *). In 
this third category Chaine includes a parallel with the Gospel of 
John ( Jas . 4 : 4= Jn . 15:19). 

-^■'■Schlatter offers parallels of content (pp. 10-16) and a 
list of mere verbal reminiscences (pp. 19-21, marked by 
parenthesis) . References found in both categories are marked 
star * . 

'^'^Lohse (p. 9) states that his list could be augraented 
but that these four examples already prove that James is con- 
sciously employing sayings of Jesus, 




i O 

w a c z -•- " 

1 9 6 1 

d 7 






49 . 


19 6:^ 




51 . 





5 3 . 

Wi 11 JaiBs 

19 65 



19 65 
















19 80 


Davids-^ "^ 


43-54 13 

67-68 19 

221 6 

54 16 

402 24 

102-103 25 

84-86 13 

558-559 11 

48-50 24 

8-11 39 

340 6 

17 16 

9 9 

66-67 52 

Jas. l:2=Mt. 5:11-12; Lk . 6:22-23: 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 19, 20, 
22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 40, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 
K4 5 6 '^■7 ^>a "=^9 60 
Jas. l:3^-=Lk. 21:19: (19), 23, 
Jas. 1 : 3-4 = Lk. 8:15: (29) , 

Jas. l:4=Mt. 5:48: 6, 9, (11), 12, 15, 17, (19), 23, 25, 32, 39*, 

48, 50, (51 ) , 52, 56, 58, 60. 
.c ^ ; /.; ^ : 1 -3 : o u , 
21: (19). 

'; Lk. 11:9; 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 
21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 
37, 38, 39*, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 
53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60*. 

: 47. 

40 , 


■ T ;-■,;-. 



. 10 

Jas . 


: 4=Mt 

. 19 

Jas , 


, 5^j^+. 

. 7 : 





5 1 , 


•: ■ 

: 5=Mt 

Jas , 

1 : 

: 6=Mt . 

7 : 

'^-'^The references listed are those in which Gryglewicz 
finds direct dependence of James upon Matthew. He also distin- 
guishes other categories; 1) sisnilar verbal expressions (p. 35); 
2) similar themes developed differently (pp. 37-40); and 3) coin- 
ciding themes where? the direction of dependence is impossible to 
establish (pp. 40-43), 

■^'^Eleder only includes references to the Sermon on the 
Mount . 

^•-^Davies' less important parallels (which he leaves 
unstarred) are here placed in parenthesis. 

^'-'Gromacki limits himself to parallels with the Sermon on 
the Mount . 

■^"^Vle will follow the more detailed categorization found 
in David's article, "James and Jesus," 66-67 rather than the list 
in his commentary, pp. 47-48. The asterisk * means a close allu- 
sion; the double asterisk ** designates an indirect citation; no 
marking indicates a possible allusion; parenthesis are used for 
Davids' other distinctions entitled basic concept (5), concept of 
parable (4), and idea of narrative (1), 




;6=Mt. 21:21; Mk . 11:23: 2, 5, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, (18) 
(19), 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48 
(51 ) , 52 , 55, 56, 59, 60* . 

Jas . 


:7=Lk. 11:13; 34. 



:6-8-Mt. 14:30; 17:20; Lk , 8;24"25; (19). 

Jas . 


:9=:Mt. 5:3: 6, 9, 25, 39, 58. 

Jas , 


9=Lk. 1:52: 16, 20, 23, (38), 52. 

Jas . 


9-10=Mt. 18:4: 8, 19, (60) , 

Jas , 


9-10=Mt. 23:12; Lk . 14:11; 22:26: (60). 

Jas , 


10-11== Mt . 13:6: (19) , 

Jas . 


10~ll-Lk. 12:15--21; 39, 

Jas . 


ll=Mt . 5: 29 : ( 19) , 23 , 



12-Mt. 5:10-12; Lk . 6:22-23: 32, 38, 43, 47, 54, 56, 59. 

Jas . 


12=Mt. 10:22; 8, (11), 19, 23, 60. 

Jas . 



13=-Mt. 26:41; Mk . 14:38; Lk . 22:40,46: 23. 

Jas . 


13--14=Mt. 6:13; Lk , 11:4: 43, 60, 

T ^ ^.. 

14=Mt. 15:19: 6, 32. 

Jas . 

1 . 

16=Mt . 22:29: ( 39) . 

T — r-- 

1 ' 

17=Mt , 5:16: ( 19 ) , 


.i ^ 

17=Mt- 7:11; Lk, 11:13; 3, 4, 7, 13, 16, (19), 20, 22, 26, 
31, 32, 37, 40, 43, 52, 55, 56, 60*. 

j as , 

2 : 

19-Mt. 12:36; 19, 

Jas , 

1 : 

19--20-Mt, 5:22: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 20, 23, 25, 
26, 26, 29, 32, 37, 39, 40, 43, 48, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 
60* , 

Jas . 


2 0=Mt. 5:6,20; 23. 

Jas . 

1 ; 

20=Mt. 6:33: (19) , 23. 

Jas . 

1 : 

21=Mt, 5:5: 5, 39. 

Jas . 

1 : 

21=Mt. 13:19-23; Lk . 8:11-15: 16, 20, 23, (39), 56, (60). 

Jas „ 

•1 . 

21-Mt . 15:13; (19) . 


1 . 

21=Mt , 16:25; (39). 

Jas . 

1 : 

21=Lk. 2:26: 15, 

J cs S . 

1 : 

2 2-Mt. 5:19: (19) , 

Jas . 

1 ; 

2 2 - 2 5=Mt . 7:24 - 2 6 ; Lk , 6:46-49: 1 , 2 , 3 . 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10, 
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 
27, 23, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 
46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60*. 

..; a s . 

■\ , 

2 5=Mt . 5:17: (19) . 

Jas . 

1 . 

J. ,. 

2 5-Mt. 5:19: 10. 

Jas , 

1 ; 

25=Mt. 22:36f: 15, 23. 

Jas . 

1 : 

26=Mt. 5:22: 5. 

JctS , 

1 : 

26~27=Mt. 15:4-9: 47 

Jas . 

1 : 

26-27=Mt. 7:21-23: 19, 23, 43, (60). 

Jas . 

-^ „ 

26-27-Mt. 12:7; 23:2-4,23-26; Mk . 12:40: 30. 

Jas . 

1 : 

2 7=Mt. 18:7: 38*, 54, 

Jas , 

1 : 

27-Mt, 25:24: 56. 

Jas . 

X '. 

27=Mt. 25:36: 39, 43, 

Jas . 

1 : 

27=Mt. 16:26; 18:5; 25:40: 39. 

Jas . 


27=Lk. 20:46-47: (19), 

Jas . 


lf;e=Mt. 25:31ff: 54. 

Jas . 


l-4=Mt. 23:6-12; Mk , 12:38f: 30. 

Jas . 

2=Lk, 20:46-47: (19) . 

Jas . 


2=Lk. 23:11: ( 39 ) . 




J ex S 
J ci S 1 

Jas . 
Jas , 
Jas , 

JclS , 

5 0, 51, 52, 

4==Mt . 15:19: 8, ( 39 ) . 
4=Mt . 21:21: (19) , (39) . 
4=Lk, 5:22: (19), 23. 
5==Mt . 4:23; 25:34: ( 39 ) . 
:5=Mt. 5:3,5; Lk. 6:20b: 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 
17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30 
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 49 
55, 56, 59, 60*, 
:5==Mt. 11:2; Lk . 7:22: (19), 60*. 
:5=Lk. 12:21; 16:19f; 31 
:6^=Lk. 6:24-25: 19, 31. 
;6--=Lk. 18:3 : 55, ( 60 ) , 

:8=Mt. 7:12; Lk . 6:29-31: 1, 2, 8, 14, 28, 29. 
:8=Mt. 22:39; Mk . 12:31; Lk . 10:27: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 
13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 35, 
(38), 40, 44, 48, (51), 52, 56, 60*. 



Jas . 


:8-10=Mt. 19:17: (39) , 43 . 

Jas , 


:10=Mt, 5:19: (19); 43, 48, 52, 53 

, 56 

, 60* . 

Jas . 


:ll=Mt. 5:21f: 40, 50, (51), 60. 

Jas . 


: 12=^Mt ,7:16: 2 . 



:13=-Mt. 5:5; 25:34f: 1, 2, 8. 

Jas . 


:13=^Mt. 5:7; Lk. 6:33: 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7 

, 9, 12, 13, 15, 


19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 


30, 32, 35, 37, 


39, 40, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 


54, 55, 56, 58, 



Jas . 



:13=Mt. 6:14-15: 6, 25, 32, 58. 

Jas . 

:13=Mt. 7:1-2: 16,21, 

Jas . 

:13=Mt. 12:7; Lk . 6:37: (19) . 

Jas . 


:13=Mt. 18:33f: 24, 52. 


:13=Mt. 23:23; Lk . 1:72: (39). 


:14=Mt. 7:21; Lk . 6:46: 6, 25, 32, 


56, 57, 58, 60. 

Ja.s , 


14-Mt. 17:20: (39) . 

Jas . 

:15=-~Mt. 6:25: 40, 44, 51, (60), 

.Jas . 


1 5=^Mt . 2 5:36,41; 15, 2 3 , 43, 56, 

(60) . 

Jas . 


15f=Lk. 3:11; 12:33; 16:9: 34. 

Jas . 


15f=Lk. 6:29f: 14, 

Jas , 


15-16=Mt. 6:16: 19, 28. 

Jas . 


16=Mk. 5:34: (39 ) . 

Jas . 


17=Mt. 21:28f: 43. 

Jas . 


19=Mt, 8:29: 19, 23, 56. 

Jas . 


19=Mt, 19:7: ( 39 ) , 


2 , 

2 4==|v3t, 12:37: 23. 

Jas . 


26=Mt. 7:21: 50, 

Jas , 

3 : 

l=Mt, 12:36-37: 19, 23, (29), 60. 

Jas . 

3 : 

l=Mt, 23:8: 21, 38, 47, 48, 56. 

Jas . 


1-^Mk. 12:40: 2, 8, 30, 39*. 

Jas . 


l=Lk. 12:48: 34. 

Jas , 


l=Lk. 20:46-47: 2, (19). 

Jas . 


2=Mt. 5:48; 19:21: (19). 

.Jas . 


2=Mt, 12:35f: (38), 43, 48, 56. 

Jas . 

3 ■ 

6=Mt. 15:11: (38), 43, 56. 

Jas . 


9-Mt. 11:25: (39). 

Jas . 

3 : 

g-lO-Mt. 12:34: (19) , 23. 


Jas . 


Jas , 


Jas , 


Jas . 


Jas . 


Jas . 




Jas . 

:9-10=Lk. 6:28: 47, 

:10=--Mt. 15:11,18: (39), 46. 

:12=Mt, 7:16; Lk. 6:44: 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 

21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 39*, 40, 42, 43, 46, 

50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 60*. 
:12==Mt. 12:33-34: 18, 47, 
:13==Mt. 5:5: 5, 39, 43. 
:13=Mt. 11:19: (19), 23, 38, 60, 
:14-15--=Mt. 7:21-23: 19. 
; 17==Mt . 11 ; 29 : (19) . 

4 7 , 

:17=Mt. 1 


Jas , 
Jhs . 

J 3S , 

Jas , 

:17f=Lk. 3:11; 12:33; 16:9: 34. 

:18==Mt, 5:9; Lk. 6:43: 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 
(19), 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 
39, 40, 41, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60*. 
3:18==Mt. 13:8: 18. 
4:2=Mt. 5:21-22: 8. 
4:2=lMt. 21:22; r4k , 11:24: 39. 
4;2-3=Mt. 7:7-8; Lk. 11:9-10: 5, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 

, 23, 24, 28, 31, 35, 37, (39), 40, 43 


Jas . 4 : 

56, 60. 
4=Mt. 6:24; Lk . 16:13; 1, 2, 5, 6 
18, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 

9 , 10, ( 1, 1 } 

1 n 
A R . 

1 O , 

55, 56, 58, 60*. 

J Si s , 

Jas , 
Jas . 
Jas . 
Jas , 

Jc3.S . 


J 3,-S , 

Jas . 
Jss . 

Jas , 

Jas . 
Jas . 

: 4==Mt . 12:39; 16:4; Mk . 8:38: 1 , 2 , 16, (19 

30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, (38), 40, 
4:5^^;Mt, 26:53; Lk . 13:2: (39), 
4 : D=Mt. 18:4: (29) . 
4:7,9=:Mt, 23:39: 39. 

4:8^=Mt. 5:8: 5, 19, 23, (38), 43, 47. 

i9, (51) , 6C 


8=Mt. 5:30; 46 
8=Mt. 6:22: 60. 
8=Mt, 7:3,7; 18. 
8^-Mt, 18:8: 46. 
: 9==Lk . 6:25: 5 , 8 , 17, ((IB)), 19, 20, 22, 23, 

(38), (39), 40, 42, 47, 50, (51), 55, 56, 60*. 
10=:Mt . 5 : 3-5 : 6 , 25 , 32 , 48 , 53 , 58 . 
10=Mt , 18:4 : 19, (39) , 46. 
10=Mt. 23:12; Lk , 14:11: 18:14: 5, 12, 16, 17, 20, 

o , o i , 


Q q * 

, 40, 42, 46, (51 ) , 52 , 55, 



Jas . 


Jas . 


Jas , 


Jas . 


Jas , 


Jas , 


Jas . 


Jas , 


24, 30, 31, 36, 37, 3E 

56, 60*. 
10=^Lk, 1:15: ( 39 ) , 
ll-12=--=Mt, 6:12; Mk . 11:25: 39. 
ll~12=Mt. 7:1; Lk. 6:3 7: 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 

23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 

47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 60*. 
12=Mt. 10:22: 30, 56. 

12=Mt. 10:28: 3, 4, 6, 13, (19), 23, 26, 32, 38, (39). 
13-14=Mt, 6:34; Lk . 12:16-21: 1, 2, 5, ((18)), 19, 20, 23, 

(29), 31, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 52, 55, 56, 60. 
17=Mt. 7:24-26; Lk . 6:47-49: 38, 59. 

17^Lk. 12:47: 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 30, 34, 37, 56, 60, 
19==Lk. 6:25: 12, 16, 20. 



Jas , 
J ss . 
Jas , 

J 3.S , 
J<iS , 
J 3.S . 
J 3S > 
tJ 3-S J 

,7,-5 « 
J 3.S . 
•J ciS , 

Jas . 

J3S , 
^ 3. S . 
.J ciS . 

Jas . 

J3S . 

Jas , 

Jas , 

Jas . 
Jas , 

Jas : 

Jas , 
Jas , 
Jas > 

J 3 S < 

Jas , 
Jas , 
Jas , 





5 : 

; l=Lk . 


60* . 


,1 =^Lk . 

1 1 

O .J , 


6 : 

24: 12, 14, 






(38), 40, 






:19-"31; 52, 


: 2 6 ; (39). 

23, (29), 31, 32, 
(51 ) , 52, 54, 55, 

5 6 , 

6:19--20; Lk 


1 3 

1 5 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 13 , 
36, 37, (38), 40, 43 
57, 58, 60. 

4 6 

2 , 


■.„r ^ 

7, 8, 

, 9, 





31 , 

4 7 

, 48, 

o , 

K -1 

, 52, 



16, 20 

55, 56, 

Lk , 

6 : 37 ; 5 , 16, (19) 

^ I I t 

5 5 , 
2 . 

19) , 



4 8 
( 18^ 










6:37: 60* 

8:4: (39) 
3==Mt. 10:9: 56. 
3=Lk. 12:16-21: 
5=Mt. 5:3; 22. 
5=Mt. 7:13; 21:41; 
5=Lk. 16:19: (38), 
5 = Lk. 19: 27 : (39) . 
6=Mt. 5:21-22: 8. 
6=Mt, 5:39: 1, 2, 
6=Mt. 12:7,37; Lk 
40, 43, (51 ) , 60, 
7-^Mk. 4:26-29: ( (1 
7--8=Mt. 24:3,27,37,39 
7--9=Mt . 7:21-23; 16:27; 5 . 
7-9=Lk . 12:35-40: 52. 

3:2; 4:17: (19) , 23, (39) 

5:22: 60*. 

6:12; Mk . 11:25: 

7:1: 19, 23, 24, 

p A ■ 3 '■ - Mk 
40, 42, 47, 

10=Mt, 23:29 
:10-ll=Mt. 5:11-12; Lk . 6:22-23; 

20, 23, 25, 31, 32, 35, 37, 3' 

56, 58, 60. 
ll=Mt. 10:22: 8, (11), (39), 56 
ll=Lk. 21:19: (29) , 
;12=iMt. 5:33-37: 1, 3, 4, 

14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 

56, 57, 58, 59, 60**. 
12^=Lk. 6:37; 14 
13==Lk. 6:38: 14 
14=Mt , 9:1: 3, 9, ■ 
14=-Mk. 6:13: 8, 9, 15, (1' 
15=Mt. 7:7: 6, 9, 25, 58, 
15=Mt. 9:2f; Mk . 2:5f; Lk . 5 : 20f : ■ 
15=Mt. 12:32: 19, 38, (39), 46, 54 
16=Mt . 3:6; 5:13: (39) . 
16=Mt. 18:18f: (18). 
16=Lk. 15:21; 18:13: 39. 

13 : 1-5 

3 9 


.<■. o , 


(39) , (60) 


). 30 


J f 









5 1 , 




i , o , 





21 , 

. 22, 

2 3 ', 




35 , 

. 36, 









25 , 



5 5 , 

41 , 
5 5 , 

26, (39) , (60) . 
39 . 


Jas. 5:16f=Lk, 6:38: 14. 
Jas. 5:17==Lk. 4:25: 8, 1 

{19}, 20, 23, 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 

4 '^ 

, 55, 60 

19=Mt. 18:15; Lk . 17:3: (18), 55, 60. 
; . 1 f ; • ( oQ ) 

J 3S s 

Jas. 5:19=:Lk 

Jas . 5 ; 20=Mt 

Jas., 5:20=Mt. 18:12-14,24; 25:24-30: 39 

i ] J. o : \ 1 it j , Zo , oo . 

The Twenty-five Most Frequently Mentioned Parallel:?. 

The follov^fing list indicates the most frequently quoted 
parallels betw6-!e:n James and the cfospels. Those couplets above 
the line have been dealt with in chapter 3 while those below the 
line will be discussed in this appendix. The double stai'i''ed 
entries are deliberate allusions to specific sayings of Jesus 
while a single asterisk designates a theme from the preaching of 
Jesus included in the church's paraenetic tradition, Jas, 2:13; 
3:12,18 are wisdom sayings employed as transitions betv.jeen. para- 

* * T ~, , 


Jas . 1 

* * Jas , 1 

* * Jas . 2 


22-25==Mt. 7:24-26: Lk . 6:47-49 
5=Mt. 7:7; Lk . 11:9 

Number of Authors 

* ' 



Jas , 


Jas . 



Jas . 



Jas . 


* •? 

Jas . 



Jas , 



Jas . 


* :): 

Jas . 


* * 

Jas . 



Jas . 


2=Mt. 6:19-20; Lk . 12:33b 

13=^Mt. 5:7; Lk , 6:36 

18=Mt. 5:9; Lk , 6:43 

ll-~12=Mt, 7:l~2a; Lk . 6:37 

12=Mt. 7:16; Lk , 6:44 

8=Mt. 22:39; Mk . 12:31; Lk . 10:27 

4=Mt. 6:24; Lk . 16:13 

19b-~20=Mt. 5:22a 

6=Mt. 21:21; Mk, 11:2 3 

2=Mt. 5:ll-12a; Lk. 6:22-23a 

l=Lk. 6:24,25b 

2-3=Mt. 7:7; Lk . 11:9 

10-lla=Mt. 5:11,12b; Lk . 6:22,23b 
** Jas. 4:10=Mt. 23:12; Lk . 14:11; 18:14b 
** Jas. 4:9=Lk, 6:21,2 5b 
Jas. l:4=Mt. 5:48 

5 9 

4 9 

4 5 




3 8 

3 3 

3 2 







2 4 





Jas, 4:4a-Mt. 12:39a; 16:4a; Mk . 8:38 



Jas . 1 : 1 7=Mt . 7:11; Lk , 11:1 3 1 8 

Jas , 4 : 1 3 - 1 4=Mt . 6:34; Lk .12:16-21 18 

Jas. 5:9b=--Mt. 24:33b; Mk , 13:29b 18 

Jas. 5:17-Lk. 4:25 15 

2.0 It is frequently remarked that the Epistle of James con- 
tains more reminiscences to the logia cjf Jesus than any NT book, 
outside the g-ospels. As witnessed by the length of this appen- 
dix, the parallels between James and the Synoptic gospels are 
extensive. Over 180 possible parallels have been compiled by 60 
authors in the last two centuries. If we omit the extended dis- 
courses of 2:1-3:12, only nine verses in James (out of 7C tota.! 
verses) are unpsiralleled in the Synoptic gospels. The eigreement 
of results, however, is substantially less extensive. 

One -tenth of the authors (6 or more} agree on 40 parallels. 
One-fourth of the authors (15 or more) agree on 25 parallels. 
One-third of the a.ixthars (20 qv more) agree on 20 parallels. 
One-half of the authors (30 or more) agree on 9 parallels. 
Two-thirds of the authors (40 or more) agree on 6 parallels. 
Three-fourths (45 or more) agree on three parallels;. 
Nine-tenths (54 or more) agree on only one parallel. 

Furthermore, there are several texts whose likeness to the Synop- 
tic tradition is so vague that they are compared to numerous pas- 
sages. Jas. 1:21; 2:15; 3:1; and 4:8, for instance, are said to 
paralle'l five different texts in the gospels; 2:13 and 5:9, 
seven; and. 1:26-27 is compared with nine different gospel 
references. This extensive div6»rgence of opinion raises doubts 
over the usefulness of the great majority of these parallels. In 
order to understand the nature of these parallels, this book has 
been written. In chapter 3 we discussed in detail the gospel 
parallels listed by at least one-third of the various authors. 
In this appendix we will undertake a shorter more superficial 

study of the 20 referred to by one-tenth of the authors 
(at least six occurrences) . 

3.0 Eight texts in the Epistle of James are listed betx'jeen 10 
and 19 times in the history of Interpretation as parallels with 
the sayings of Jesus: Jas. l:17-Mt. 7:17; Lk . 11:13; 4:4a~Mt. 
12:39a; 16:4a; Mk , 8:38; 4:12 = Mt, 10:28; 4:13-14=:Mt. 6:34; Lk . 
12:16-21; 4:17-Lk, 12:47; 5 : 6=Mt . 12:7,37; Lk . 6:37b; 5 : 9b=Mt . 
24:33b; Mk . 13:29b; 5:17=Lk. 4:25. 

3.1 Jas. 1:17 Mt . 7 : 1 1 ' Lk. 11:13 

Idb ^ y-^p Q^QQ eL ouh' vp.eZq, el o'vy up.eic, 

drre LpacTTOQ eazLv KQ'i-cuy Troyr/poL ouxcc, novripoL vnapxoi-'zec, 

^^ naaa cSoctlc, ayoO,!) oidaze dofiaxa aya£a ctSaxe dciiiaxa aycjO^a 

Kcd TTtiy c5(jpr;p.a TeAeLO!^- diSouai zo lc, TeKyoLC, 6i.36vaL xolq 'ceKvocc, 

ai'kiOev eo'Tiu Kcxxo'pa tyop' up,(jx.', rroaoj paAAoy ! , rroau uaAAoy 


xSy (f>wxuv , Trap' y 6 eu xoic, oupavoic, o e'E, ovpavov 

OUK li-'L TTQ-pcfAAay!'') 6u)cje(. qy^gOa xo'u; Sioaei nvevp^cf ayiav 

f) xpoTrr/Q cmocjKLaaiia . alxovaiv cxvxcv . xolq aixova l-i^ auxbv , 

Throughout this discussion we will offer exegetical data 
that argues for an allusion to the gospel references and then in 
each case explain why this evidence is invalid. First of all, 
both the gospels and James present the teaching that God the 
Father gives good gifts. The purpose of the author, however, is 
different in each case: the gospels place the accent upon God's 
willingness to give to those who ask, while James defends his 
claim that God cannot be blamed for causing the trials which the 
righteous are encountering. Therefore James does not include a 
comparison with earthly fathers but offers only a statement about 
the character of God. This b3.sic difference of emphasis proves 
that James himself is addressing a specific situation of bitter- 
ness which has arisen in the trials of his audience. 

Secondly, in each case the words -naxfjp and ayaOa coin- 
cide. The remaining vocabulary, however, is divergent: 1) the 
ift'ord for gift is different in each case; 2) the use of the adjec- 
tive xeAecoc, is characteristic of James (1:4,17,25; 3:2); 3) in 
the gospels God is described as a Father in (the) heaven(s), 
while in James the designation "Father of lights" is employed. 
Dibelius contends that James' phrase stems from a. Hellenistic 
background-''- 8 while Ropes envisions Jewish influence since the 
benediction employed before the; familiar Shema states, '"Blessed 
be the Lord our God who hath formed the lights. "^^ Whatever the 
case, this terminology was apparently not employed by Jesus. 
Therefore, even though comraon content and some coinciding 
vocabulary are present, it is unnecessary to assume a source in 
the sayings of Jesus, 

■h/i -i^ T ■ T 

Thirdly, the allusion to m 
increases the possibility that James would refer to another verse 
from Mt . 7 within the; esame context. One possible verbal tie is 
the vjord avuBeu , since the theme of wisdom mentioned in 1:5 is 
described as auuOuv at 3:17 just as every good gift comes from 
above in 1:17.20 j^g ^ 1:17, however, is more likely influenced by 
the immediate context than by the more remote reference to Mt , 
7:7-11 par. at Jas . 1:5. After proclaiming that God is not 
tempted with evil at 1:13, James continues his defense of God's 

-^■^Dibelius aiid Greeven, Jaie_s, 100. In n. 160 Dibelius 
cites the Assumption of Moses 36,38 where the phrase "Father of 
lights" is employed (but see Lav^'s , .Ja2i,es, 73). On the other 
hand, Davids, Jam.e_s, 87 contends that Hellenistic thought did not 
use ipuq, to designate heavenly bodies, 

l^Ropes, James, 160. Cf, also Ps . 136:7. 

^'-'cf. Davids, James, 88, 

character in the transitional paragiraph 1; 16-18 by stating the 

opposite, positive truth that only good proceeds from God. Since 
James' context has changed from asking in prayer (1:5-8), to 
riches (1:9-11), and finally to a description of the wrong 
response to tempjtation (1:12--18), the assumption of an identical 
context is questionable. There is, therefore, no allusion to the 
gospels but only the employment of similar themes and vocabulary: 
the Father gives good gifts. Because of the hexameter meter and 
the phrase |ir] TrXauacrOe which introduces a quote of Menander at 1 
Cor. 15:33, scholars have postulated that James is employing 
source material.--^ On the other hand, since James employs rhyme, 
alliteration, and excellent literary Greek, 22 j.^^^ could have com- 
posed this poetical section himself. 
3.2 Jas. 4:4a Mt . 12:39a; 16:4a Mk. 8:38 

y £ i> e a nov •q p a 
Ka L liO.LXSAi.'^ 

dc, yap eau eTfaLaxvuBn p,e 
... ev X{] yeveg tauxn 
IJ.OLXO?\ i^Sec, , KQL lio.LXSAi.'^ '''0 liSiJ!ii22i.k£ ^• 

OUK oidaxe ozi ^ Ka.l cr,uapT:yAy , 

h (piKia xov KGop-ou rjrip.eLO}j err i^rjxei Kal 6 uloc; xou avOptoTTOv 

eycdpa xov Oeou ecrxiv; eiTa Laxvudriaeza i avxov 

In chapter 4:1-10 James omits his usual greeting "my 

(beloved) ba^ethren" and addresses his audience as unfaithful 

creatures (4:4) and double-minded sinners (4:8) to discipline 

them. They are designated, as adulteresses since their prayer 

life is polluted by pursuits of pleasure (4:3) 3.nd friendship 

^•^Ropes, James, 159 refers to the division of syllables, 
the unusual and poetical word d6prip.a, and the imperfect 
antithesis to vv . 13--15 to support his argument. Spitta, _Zur 
§.§.§£h.iS:li%^ ' 11 • 41,162 suggests the Sibylline Oracles 3:278 but 
also illustrates from other apocryphal liter3.ture while Adamson, 
Janiesj_ Man and Message , 118 refers to the Odyssey 6:153. 


Cf. above, pp. 264-265 

- 414- 

with the woi-'ld (4;4h) . The use of this feminine pejorjitive 
address need iiot entail actual adultery, 23 sjnce this phrase has 
an extensive history as figurative language. 24 ^ parallel 
expre;ssiori "evil and adulterous g^eneratlon" is found in the 
gospels at Mk . 8:38, Mt , 12:39a, and 16:4a, Since these are the 
only places in the NT where polxctAlq is used in 5i figurative 
sense (adjective in the gospels, substantive in James), the 
gospels are possibly the source from which James gleaned the 
expression "adulteresses". Because neither Matthew nor Luke fol- 
low Mark's use of this harsh phraseology in the parallel pas- 
sages, it is difficult to dete?riri.ine if this term traces back 
originally to Jesus, In all likelihood Matthew and Luke decided 
that such language was not appropriate to contexts teaching the 
meaning of discipleship . 25 Matthew transfers this phrase; to con- 
flict situations where it understandably makes more sense 
(12;39a; 16;4a). Whereas the Q saying about the sign of Jonah in 
Lk . 11:29 begins with the words "this is a wicked generation", 
Mt , 12:39 interposes the term "adulterous" {yevea jiGuripa Kal 
poLxaAlq) .26 p^ doublet is found at Mt . 16:4 where Matthew inserts 

■^'-'Hort, James , 91 supports actual adultery as well as x^ , 
P, W, M, sy^"^'^ which add potxot Kal to include both sexes. 

^^^This phrase is used figuratively in Is. 1:21; 50:1; 
54:1-6; 57:3; Jer . 3:9; 13:27; Ezk. 16:38; 23:45. 

^^Matthew omits the whole verse and substitutes a saying 
about reward according to works (16:27) while Lk. 9:26 erases 
only this phrase to generalize its application beyond the evil 
and adAilterous generation. This hypothesis is supported by the 
parallel saying in Q (Lk. 12:8-9; Mt . 10:32-33) which also fails 
to include this specific application to an "adulterous and sinful 
generation" in a context about discipleship . 

'^^-'Matthew switches the order of the "sign of Jonah" 
saying and the "evil spirit" logion so that the evil spirit 
returns to this wicked and adulterous generation. He adds this 
phrase withou,t the word "adulterous" as a conclusion at 12:45b. 

4. 1 5 • 

t h i s e X p r e s s i o n i n to si in i 1 a r M a r k a n material (8:1 1 - 1 2 ) a b o u. t 
asking for signs. Thus on. two occasions Matthew introduces this 
phrase into contexts concerned with, the giving of signs. Even 
though Mark and Matthew use this expression in separate contexts, 
we are left with the impression that "this wicked and adulterous 
generation" had become a set formula since in all three occur- 
rences the identical term "generation" appears. Therefore the 
omission of this formula in James probably indicates that he was 
not alliiding to a saying of Jesus. Instead, James' particular 
address is understandable within the subject matter of the verse. 
They are adulteresses since friends.h2p with the world adulterizes 
any relationship with God ( Jas . 4:4b), The choice of the voca- 
tive, "you men of double-mind," at 4:8 liketA?ise explains the 
vocative, "-adulteresses" at 4:4, Thus both addresses can be 
accounted for within the concepts used by J-arnes . He was, of 
course, influenced by the frequent employment of the term 
"adulteresses" in the OT,27 +;he teaching of Jesus, and the early 
church as witnessed by Matthew's addition of the term. jiOLXCfACq to 
his sources. Yet this similar wording in no way establishes a 
dependence upon the gospel parallels. 

2'^Although Hosea (ch. 1-3) was the first prophet of 
Israel to apply a metaphorical understanding of adultery to the 
covenant between God and his people, a closer parallel to James 
is encountered in Ezk . 16:1-35. After an allegorical interpreta- 
tion of history describing Israel's idolatry, 16:35 employs the 
parallel term "harlot" {TfSpvr}) in a vocative address similar to 
Jas. 4:4, "Wherefore, harlot, hear the word of the Lord." 


3.3 Jas. 4:12 Mt. 10:28 

etc; ec'XLv 6 X'0^io(9etrjc, Kal p.rj 4io!3eiad€ and xQu anoKxeuvoi'Zkju 

p. r/ d ij i^ ap. e v u v an o k t e l y a i ■ 
(^opecaQe 6e p,aAAov 

-''•^*'- 532Ii?.M:,2S> ' :s:l^I,92i.£!ZE,.k ■-*^ yeevvr), 

av 6e rcc, et 

o Kplvu)!-' xov irKriaLov) 

Both Jas. 4:12 and Mt . 10:28 eire eschatological 
with a practical ethical application. Jas. 4:12 pictures a judge 
who has; the power to save or destroy at the final judgment in 
order to outlaw judging and speaking evil against a fellow 
believer. Likewise Mt . 10:28 describes the destruction of soul 
and body in Gehenna to indicate that fear of bodily harm by 
earthly enemies is unnecessary. Therefore, the form of the 
saying and some vocabulary (duycrpeyoc anoXecra l) are similar, but 
the content is too divergent to assume a deliberate a.llusion. 
James exhorts the Christian fellowship to put themselves under 
the law and not speak evil against -Scich other if they wish not to 
be destroyed. The exhortation in Matthew, on the other hand, is 
directed at the outside oppressor and fear, not judging, is 
spoken against. Moreover with regard to vocabuleiry, the .addi- 
tional positive element of salvation is included in James while 
the descriptions "soul and body" and "in Gehenna" are omitted. 
The insignificance of this x^^-- 3^- j-^I is reinforced by the fact 
that in the last fifty years it has not appeared in the list of 
any commentator. The primary source for James' saying is proba- 
bly the OT description of God as the one who "kills and makes 


alive" (Dt. 32:39; 1 Sasn. 2:6; 2 Kings 5:7), although the LXX 

does not employ the exact wording of James. 2° 

3.4 Jas . 4:13-14: "Come now, you v^jho say, "Today or tomorrov.? 
we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there 
and trade and get gain, ' whereas you do not know about tomor- 
£i=if, {avp lop). What is your life? For you are a mist that 
appeal's for a little time and then vanishes." 

Mt . 6:34: "Therefore do not be anxious about ,tornorr,ow 
(etq xr)v avpLOv) for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. 
Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day." 

Lk. 12:16-21 The p?irable of building bigger barns -~ the 
rich fool. Verse 19 says "Soul, you have ample goods laid up 
for many years" (olc, exr; ttgAAq') . 

In this case it is unnecessary to treinscribe the texts 
into Greek since the terminology of James and Luke is completely 
incongruous while the only similarity between James and Matthew 
is the word "tomorrow". Shepherd contends, however, that Matthew 
underscores the same emphasis "of being without anxiety for the 
morrow. "29 Although all three passages involve the future, the 
differences with the gospels dwarf any similarities. Whereas Mt . 
6:34 is against future plans altogether, James exhorts his 
audience to plan their future within the will of the Lord. 
Although both Jas. 4:13-17 and Lk . 12:16-21 contain a similar 
warning against building a future for self and leaving God out, 
the future involves an active life of trading and business in 
Jas. 4:13-14 whereas a retirement of ease and pleasure is 
described in Lk , 12:19, Furthermore, the imagery of the narra- 
tive is com.pletely divergent: a farmer vs. a merchant; barns vs. 
a journey of buying and selling; life as a mist vs , life as a 

''°Dt. 32:39 anoKzeuu K.a l ^tip Trotriatj; 1 Sam, 2:6 9avaxoL 
Kal ^(^oyoueZ; 2 Kings 5:7 rou Bcxvaziuaai Kol Cwottc incrat . 

•^Shepherd, "James and Matthev'^," 46 


fool. Such exhortations about the future are common in Jewish 

wisdom; Prov. 27:1 warns "Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do 

not knov<.7 what a day may bring forth." Therefore a popular Jewish 

wisdom tradition underlies James' text rather than a specific 

sayincj of Jesus. 

3,5 Jas. 4:17 Lk . 12:47 

sicecyoQ de 6 SovXoq 
elScxL ouu KaAcu no ieiiv o yuovc, xa 0eAnp.a zov KVplov avxov 

EflL yjl .KQli. iiA s:~aip.aaaQ 

2Tg_i-OUi,'T; t , r) 7l,oi/'/oaQ npoc, xc OeAriiia avzov 

aiiapxia avzu ecrxii-'. dapricexai noKAac,- 

Jas. 4:17 and Lk . 12:47 both emphasize that the distin- 
guishing mark of sin is knowing what is right and not doing it. 
In describing sin both seem to imply levels or degrees of wrong- 
doing, although only Luke specifically distinguishes between a 
severe beating for premeditated misconduct and a light beating 
for unconscious sin. Furthermore, both Jas, 4:17 and Lk . 12:47 
appear in stories about journeys; in James a merchant will embark 
on a trading expedition while in Luke the master of a household 
has departed on a trip. Yet these similau" it ies in content are 
too superficial to establish any close connection between the 
texts. P-^e do encounter some similar terminology, but the theme 
of "not doing" is characteristic of James. Having already dis- 
cussed hearing without doing (1:22-25) and faith without doing 
(2:14-26), James now condemns knowing without doing. The 
eschatological nature of Jesus' parable is also missing in James' 
story and teaching on degrees of sin is a coiruBon feature in the 
NT church (1 Jn . 5:16-17; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26), Even an exegete 
like Mitton who continually discerns allusions to the gospels 


admits that Iiere we encounte.r only "a superficial reseiriblance to 

the saying of Jesus in Lk . 12:47, "30 This verse can be best 

categorised as a traditional wisdom saying^l v^hich serves a 

transitional purpose in the framework of James' epistle similar 

to 2:13, 3:11-12, and 3:18. 

3.6 Jas. 5:6 Lk . 6;37b Mt , 12:7 Mt . 12:37 

et cSc eyj^vJKeixe eic yap xSv Aoyuv 

XL eaxiu- aou Slkqi u r/CT]-] , 

eAeoQ QeAu Kal tzal iiK zuv Kcywv fii) ov 9vcrLav , ovk 


x6y 6 iKa loi' , TOUQ avaix iovq . 

o u K a y T L X dCT" Kal o u p. r) 

ere X ex l u p. t ;,' . Kazad l kgljO q x e . 

All of the above texts embrace the common subject mcttter 
of condemning which accounts for the one similar term in each 
column. Furthermore, all these references empha.size the recipro- 
cal interaction betV'/een a person's actions and what is received 
in return. Since the rich of Jas. 5 have condemned and oppressed 
the righteous, disa:.strous msiseries are comiing upon themi (5:1-3). 
Likwise the Pharisees in Mt . 12:7 have condemned the disciples 
for Sabbath transgression and receive in return Jesus condemina- 
tion for their lack of mercy. In Mt . 12:37 Jesxis teaches that 
the cause of condem.nation (or justification) is the ro.anner with 
which people handle their words. It could be argued that all of 
these examples are specific applications of the more general 

'^'-'Mitton, James, 173. 

'^-'The fact that eicSoxL does not have a grammatical 
reference point in the context could be evidence of preexistent 
material which does not fit vibII in its new context. 


principle of Lk . 6:37b, "condemn not and you will not be con- 
demned," All are different movements upon the same theme of 
judgment according to works. This Jewish principle, however, is 
applied to completely different situations with James addressing 
the rich man's behavior while Jesus speaks out about sabbath 
observance and the use of the tongue. Therefore, it is doubtful 
whether James was consciously thinking of a specific saying of 
Jesus or reflectively grasping the connection between all of the 
above verses'. He appears to be merely describing the means of 
oppression which the rich normally employ against the righteous 
as in Prov. 1; 11-18 and Wis. 2:12-20. Wis. 2:12 specifically 
refers to the righteous like Jas . 5:6 ("But let us lie in wait 
for the righteous man''}, and 2:20 describes the plan of attack 
executed by the oppressing rich ("Let us condemn hiin to a shame- 
ful death"). Therefore traditional language is being employed as 
at Jas. 5:4-5.32 
3,7 Jas, 5 ; 9b Mk. 13;29b Mt. 24:33b 

yoyoCTKOte yiv6(7Ke:ze 

ISov 6 Kpixr}!:; or i eyyuQ eaziu oti eyyuQ eaziv 

npa x5.v 0jJ£oi^ eCTTiiKey. en I Ovjiaic,. enl £„y,£atc,. 

The obvious tie between these texts is the common use of 
the terra "gates" within an esch.atological context . •'^-^ In Mark and 

2 2cf . ch. 2, .sections 3.3 and 3.4, Other suggestions 
include 1) an actual murder in the community (but the singular 
xby diKaLOu is employed while the possible referents in the con- 
text (5:4) are in the plural: workmen, xuv kpyazuu or harvesters, 
xSy eepiaavzuv); 2) a reference to the death of Christ who is 
called the just one in Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Jn . 
2:1,29; 3:7; or 3) an allusion to the murder of James the Just 
thus making the epistle pseudonymous. 

■^■^It is not the place of temporal judgment, i.e. the city 
gate, which is spoken of as Cantinat, Jacques , 237 maintains, but 
rather the eschatological door, leading to the future age. 

'"r. i 

Matthev^ this saying is located in the eschato.logica.l discourse 
where the signs of the times reveal that the coming of the Son of 
Man is near,^^ Likewise Janies uses the eschatological facts that 
"the coming of the Lord is at hand" (5:8) and "the Judge is 
standing at the doors" (5; 9) to ground his exhortations in favor 
of patience (5:7) and establishing the heart (5:8) and against 
grumbling (5:9) . Therefore the French cojiimentator Chaine has put 
this paraillel in his short list entitled "Rapprochements qui 
etablisisent une dep>end'ance certaine de Jacques a 1 ' egard de 
1 ' enseignement de Jesus. "-■'^ This seems to ue^ an overestimate on 
Chaine 's part; it is more likely that the phraseology of both 
J'ames and Jesus is dependent upon the common background of Jewish 
eschatological language. In both the parable of the ten virgins 
(Mt, 25:10) and the parable of the householder (Lk. 13:24-25) the 
imagery of the eschatological door reappears as a shut door. If 
direct dependence on a word of Jesus were to be discerned, there 
would have to be more similarity between the ethicad, exhortations 
(grumbling vs. discerning the times) and the specific nature 
imagery employed (early and late rains vs. a fig tree budding- 
leaves). There is only ai common eschatological outtlook on the 
part of James and Jesus, not an intentional allusion. 

■^'*Whereas in Matthew and Mark the Son of Man is at the 
gates, in Lk , 21:31 the kingdom is near. In Rev. 3:20 the 
exalted Lord stands t-nX. xr\v Bvpav , but this is the door to salva- 
tion probably based on the imagery of Mt, 7:7 par, and not the 
eschatological door, 

^ ^Chaine, Jaogues, LVIII . 


3.8 Jas, 5:17 Lk . 4:25 

7T o A Acx I X ?] P cf •'■ UCTa u 
'KA_taQ avBpi^i'oc, r\v Giio LOJiaOriQ ev zaiq, qaepaiQ 'HAi-OiJ 

Tip. LP, Ka L rrpoaevxn TTpoaiii)E,aTo ei-' t5 'lapa^iA, 

xob II ri (ipe^ai, ore eicAsr. ludT/ 6 oupavoc, 

KQ'l ouK eppeSei^ e7Ti, xr]Q yTiq, 

tv Lavxovq, .x£e iQ kc(_1_ iLlL^LCLk §A" ^"^- ^''^n SP. ^cr Sli UJJFJL-a §.£' 

c-JQ e:ye^'c:TO ALjUoc, p..eyaQ 
e TT I 7T aao' v x y) v y r; v 

In contrast to 1 Kings 18:1 where the famine prophesiejd 
by Elijah persisted for three years, both Lk , 4:25 and Jas, 5:17 
describe the drought as enduring for three years and six months. 
Although Aland^^ contends that this parallel raises the pos- 
sibility that James drew his material from Luke's gospel, other 
explanations account equally well for the divergent time designa- 
tions. Some interpreters follow the calculation theory whereby 
the usual six jaonth dry period of Palestine is added to the time 
reference of 1 Kings 18:1 upon the supposition that Elijah's 
prophecy was spoken at the beginning of the rainy season, 37 on 
the other hand, in the Jewish apocalyptic tradition (Dan. 7:25; 
12:7; Rev. 11:2; 12:6,14) three and one-half yessrs had become a 
typical symbolic period. The two witnesses of Rev. 11:6 have the 
identical power of Elijah to shut the sky that no rain will fall 
during the three and a half years of their prophecying. This 
eschatological time period could, very easily have been applied to 
the events of Elijah outside the apocalyptic tradition to suggest 
a time of disaster or calamity. 38 since Luke emphasizes Elijah's 

■-"^Aland, "Herrenbruder Jakobus , " 104. 

■^■'Cf , Laws, Jajnes, 236-237 and the midrashlc passages 
referred to, 

38jeremias, s.v. ' HA ( e } (aq , TDNT, II: 934 contends that 
"its use in the Elijah tradition has no connection v-rith its use 
as an apocalyptic number from Daniel onwards," but Rev. 11:6 is 
proof against this hypothesis. 

going to the Gentiles while James demonstrates Elijah's 
righteousness through answered prayer, any close connection 
between Lk. 4:25 and Jas , 5:17 must be minin^ized. The dif- 
ferences in content and context argue in favor of a. common Jewish 
oral tradition. Even an exegete like Mitton 'wdio repeatedly finds 
allusions to sayings of Jesus admits that traditional language is 
here the connecting link,^^ 

4.0 There are twelve more parallels which are listed at least 
one-tenth of the time (5--9 occurrences) in ' the history of inter- 
pretation. On account of their minor significance we will merely 
indicate how each pair has been tied together. 

4.1 Both Jas. 1:12 and Mt . 5:ll-12a; Lk . 6;22-23a employ a 
paKop cog statement followed by a ot i clauses to promise a reward 
to those who endure trials. However, both the trials and the 
rewards are expre^ssed differently. Whereas James speaks 
generally about trials, the gospels; refer specifically to dis- 
ciples being reviled, spoken evilly about (Mt. and Lk , ) , per- 
secuted (Mt.), excluded, and hated (Lk.), In James a. croK'n of 
life is promised while in the gospels the kingdom of heaven is 
the reward. James might have been thinking about a cluster of 
Jesus' blessings upon the "underdog", but the wording is much too 
general to establish any a.llusion to the suggested texts above. 
Since Jas. 1:12, Rev. 2; 10b, and 2 Tim. 4:8 all employ similar 
terminology, the reference to a crown of life could point to an 
unknown saying of Jesus, '^O However, we have argued that Jas. 

■^^Mitton, James, 208, 
'*'^Cf. ch, 7, n, 6. 

=" S- A -"■ 

1:12 as well as Jas . 5: 10-1 la expresses a popular motif in the 
church's paraenesis . •*! The fact that this parallel is only found 
in a few (French) 20th century authors while in the 19th century 
Jas. 1:12 was paralleled more closely with Mt . 10:22 conclusively 
supports oar contention that no allusion of Jesus is present, 
4,2 The thenie of endurance in times of trial is present in 
both Jas. 1:12 and Mt , 10:22, but James describes the trials; in a 
general manner while Matthew specifies the problem as the hatred 
of fellow Jews toward their close relatives v-jho have been con- 
verted to Christianity. In both a reward for endurance is 
specified, yet Matthew is very general ("he will be saved") while 
James specifically promises a crowrri of life. The similar ve.rb 
V7Top.euy is found in each, but endurance v^as a cornMon paraenetic 
theme. 42 j^g _ 1.12 and 5:10--lla (cf. also Herm. , Vis, 2,2,7) are 
evidence of this paraenetic tradition which probably originated 
in the themes of Jesus' preaching as indicated in the sirfiil;ar 
subject iaatter in Mt . 10:22 and Mt . 5:11-12 par. No direct allu- 
sion to a specific saying of Jesus is necessary. 

4.3 Jas. 1:21 and Mt . 13:19-23; Lk . 8:11-15 both speak about 
the word which is first planted and then bears results. Compar- 
ing Jas. 1:21 with the interpretation of Jesus' parable of the 
sower, Davids explains: 

The interesting fact is that only in Luke 8:12 is the word 
(Aiyoc,) said or implied to have been able to save. Further- 
more, the parable of the so'wer may also be indicated in the 
idea of receiving the word (Luke 8:13) and by the strange use 
of 'iji^uxoc, which is likely influenced by the use of t|)uu in 
the parable, 43 

■*lcf, ch. 3, section 6.1. 
42cf. above, pp. 82-84. 
'^"^Davids, "James and Jesus," 7; 

Davids' thesis, however, is untenable. First of all, James 
employs an. ethical exhortation, while Jesus uses the genre of 
parable. Secondly, the use of ep.ipuzoq, is not strange but is 
paralleled in Beirn. 9:9, "He has placed within us the implanted 
gift {eiKpvxov 6wpeav) of his teaching". Finally, AoyoQ can bet- 
ter refer to the church's teaching than the planting (^jluj) of the 
seed in Lk. 8, Since the church's preaching is alluded to at 
3as. 1:18 ("the word of truth"), it would be consistent to also 
describe the kerygma at Jas , 1:21,^4 Carrington's work on the 
early church's catechism"*^ has established that such exhortations 
as "put off" and "put on" found in Jas. 1:21 were standard teach- 
ing patterns of the early church. It is the preach€sd word that 
savesi ; no reference to Lk. 8:12 is necessary. 

4.4 Both Jas. 2:8 and Mt . 7:12; Lk . 6:31 speak about treating 
another person in the same manner that you treat yourself. 
Although similar subject matter is evident, each saying has its 
own separate history. As the introductory formula indicates, 
Jcis . 2:8 originated in the OT and is passed on by Jesus (Mt. 
22:39 par.) unconnected with the golden rule. Whereas Jas. 2:8 
mentions the neighbor as the object of loi'^e, Luke places the 
golden rule within a context of love for the enemy. Therefore 
the OT passage Lev. 19:18b is in James' mind and not any NT 
references. If Ja.mes ' teaching is colored by the preaching of 
Jesus, surely Mt , 22:36-40 par. is the primary reference and not 
the golden rule of Mt , 7:12; Lk. 6:31, 

44cf. above, pp. 109--111. 

^^Carrington, Primitive Christian Catechism, 43 


4.5 Both Jas. 2:10 and Mt , 5:19 condemn overlooking even the 
smallest demand of the law. The two examples of murder and 
adultery appear in the following context in both James (2:11) and 
Matthew (5:21-30), but the sequence is different. Therefore 
James and Matthew share a common theology of the la,v^,4 6 lJ■^^f_ +.^3 
coiuplete absence of matching vocabulary (v6|j.o,v vs. ei'xaXujy; 
nzaia-ri vs Aucrp) argues against any direct dependence. Whereas 
Matthew warns against relaxing even the least of the command- 
ments, James proclaims that breaking the law at one point makes 
one "guilty of all of it". The necessity of keeping every com- 
mandment was a generally accepted teaching at this time as wit- 
nessed by Paul in Gal. 5:3, "every man who receives circunicision 
is bound to keep the whole law".'*"^ The insufficient scholarly 
backing for this parallel is indicated by the fact that only 
authors from the English-speaking world have included this 
reference in their list of parallels between the Epistle of James 
and the sayings of Jesus. 

4.6 Both Jas, 2:14 and Mt , 7:21; Lk. 6:46 develop a contrast 
between unresponsive talk and appropriate action. Yet the 
divergence in \?erbal details and examples of application argue 
against any conscious allusion to a specific saying of Jesus. In 
the gospels the hearer responds saying "Lord, Lord" while in 
Jam,es the hypothetical subject replies that he has faith. 
Whereas the examples in Mt . 7:22 display both inappropriate ver- 

■^^Cf . ch . 4 , section 3 . 4 . 

'*'^Paul, however, uses this truth as evidence against the 
continuing function of the law rather than as a prod to keep the 
whole law as James and Matthew do. 

•--4 2 7-- 

bal responses (prophesying and casting out demons) and actions 
(doing mighty works), in the Epistle of James only words of com- 
fort and encouragement are offered when actions to relieve hunger 
and nakedness are required. Inappropriate actions in Matthew are 
contrasted with the omission of good works in James; thus there- 
is no dependence, Je-^sus' important preaching theme of talk 
without obedient action (Mt, 7:15-27 par.) has probably been 
taken over by the paraenetic tradition since James' exhortations 
both here and at 1:22-25 have been closely identified with motifs 
in Jesus' preaching. However, James applies this teaching to the 
specific ecclesiastical problem of justi f icaticm by faith or 
works. The background of Jas . 2 : 14f f is thus a combination of 
the paraenetic tradition with a problem peculiar to James' expe- 
r ience . 

4.7 Both Jas. 2:15 and Mt . 25:36,41 employ the term yupyoc; in 
describing situations of economic poverty where there is hunger 
(Mt. 25:35} and a lack of daily food (Jas. 2:15). Common subject 
matter, therefore, explains why the parable of the sheep and 
goats "affords so many parallels to this section in James". ^^^ To 
confirm an allusion to the Synoptic tradition, either more of the 
situations described by Jesus (thirst, a stranger, sickness, in 
prison) woxild have to be specified by James or Jesu.s ' words, "as 
you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it iaot to 
me" would have to be hinted at. We agree with Davids that James 

4 8 

Mitton, James, 101. 

is illustrating from "a typical situation of need portrayed in 
numerous OT passages,"*'^ 

4,8 Jas , 4:8 <3.ricl Mt , 5:8 link together being p>ure in heart 
and seeing God (Mt. ) or dra'wing near to God (Jas. ) . However, 
whereae; the interplay between the two concepts in Matthew is 
direct and straightforward, in James the two ideas are in sejoa- 
rate sentences creating only a vague and arguable connection: 
"Dra'w near to God smd he wi__.Ll draw riear to Y_ou. Cleanse your 
hands, yovi sinners, and guxifjy iLour ,he§;IliS^' yc''-^- ^^^^ of double 
mind." In Jas. 4:9,10 we do encounter allusions to sayings of 
Jesus, '^0 an indication that more of this section might be 
influenced by domlRical words. Yet purity of heart is a common 
ethical theme, "a call that John, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and the 
Pastorals take up, "51 Since clean hands and a pure heart are also 
OT virtues (Ps. 24:4) , the connecting link between these passages 
is OT background and the eroployment of similar terminology in 
par aene t i c se c t i ons . 

4.9 Both Jas. 4:10 and Mt . 5:3-5 indicate that good thlngcs 
will happen to those who have such character qualities as poverty 
of spirit (Mt , 5:3-4), meekness (Mt, 5:5), and humility (Jas, 
4:10). However, the divergent vocabulary and subject matter 
prove that the supposition of an allusion is unwarranted. A much 
closer parallel with the saying of .Jesus in Mt . 23:12; Lk. 14:11; 

'i^Davids, James, 121 refers to Job 22:6; 24:7; 31:9; 
20:5; 58:7. 

^'^Cf, ch , 3, sections 4,3 and 4.5. 

"'^Davids, James, 167, 


18:14b'-''- makes the proposal of a relationship with Mt . 5:3-5 
unnecessary . 

4.10 Mt . 24:3,27,37,39 and Jas . 5:7,8 all employ the term 
napova La to cle:3cribe the eschat ological event which will 
inaugerate the new age. This is the extent of the similarities 
involved. The emphasis in Matthew is upon the signs of Jesus' 
coming while James is interested in patience and firmness of 
heart. In Matthew the term "Son of Man" is chosen whereas in 
James the title "Lord" is utilized. Since the parousia has 
become a technical term in Christian eschatology, one would 
expect this word to appear when James mentions the eschatological 
future. No allusion to a saying of Jesus is necessary. 
4.11 In section 3,7 we have already connected Jas, 5:9b with 
Mt. 24:33b and Mk . 13:29b which picture the door to the eschato- 
logical futuj'e. To a lesser extent in the tradition (since Mayor 
xn ioJZ/ J cts , L) : ::i <i, iio.s uee.ii pos j. i. ioij,eo. csa-uiiys j. tit; rt L . ill. i nese 
exhortations reveal the same moral principle that we discussed 
under Jas. 5:6=Lk. 6:37b etc. There we savj that this emphasis 
upon the reciprocal interaction between a person's actions and 
what is received in return is common to both James and Jesus as 
well as Jewish thought. The identical phrase lua pn Kp L9r<x:e 
indicates that James ha.s internalized, a common religious assump- 
tion found in both Judaism and Christianity: one will be held 
accountable for his vices at the fina.1 judgment. Since Matthew 
speaks against the vice of judging while James exhorts his 
readers not to grumble, no allusion can be substantiated. The 


Cf . ch. 3, section 4.5. 

fact that the judgment is an important ethical deterrent for 
James (2:12: 3:1; 4:12; 5:9,12) demonstrates that we are encoun- 
tering Jamesian theolocry here. 

4.12 Jas . 5:14 and Mk . 6; 13 illustrate the healing technique 
of anointing with oil. Both the twelve disciples on their mis- 
sionary journey and the elders of the assembly of James' day 
anointed people with oil while invoking the name of the Lord. 
Since the laying on of hands for healing^S gg well as the use of 
oil^'^ was popular in the Jewish tradition, it is possible that we 
are encountering here religious techniques not limited to 
Christian contexts. However, because we knoK? of the impact of 
Jesus' healing ministry upon the early church (Acts 3:7; 5:15 
etc.), it is more probable that a continuation of Jesus' healing 
luinistry by the church is being illutstrated . Jesus' procedure of 
the laying on of hands (Mk. 1:41; 7:32) would then be implied in 
James' instruction to pray "over them". Therefore, Jesus' exam- 
ple is in the mind of James, but certainly no specific incident 
of anointing with oil such as Mk. . 6:13 needs to be specified. 
5.0 A Categorization of Parallels 

No allusions to the sayings of the Jesus-tradition have 
been discerned in the .Jamesian passages investigated in this 
appendix. Most of the parallels are limiited to the employment of 

^3pss, 35:13; 41:4; Job 2:11; Tobit 1:19; Sir. 7:35; 
31:9-15; Baba Bathra 116a,; Berakoth 34b; Sanhedrin 101; IQapGen. 

S'^Is, 1:6; Jer . 8:22; Jos., Ant. 17:172; Bel.1. 1:657; 
Apoc. Mos . 9:3; 2 En, 22:8-9; 3:35; PhTlo , S om . 2:58'. ""For gen- 
eral r'eligious examples of the medicinal quality of oil see 
Dibelius and Greeven, Ja_mes , 252-253, n. 63 and Ropes, Jajn es , 


common terminology. Two texts ( Jas . l:12=Mt. 5:ll-12a; Lk. 6;22~ 
23a; Jas. l:17=^Mt, 7:11; Lk. 11:13) contain both similar content 
and vocabulary. There are several instances where the similari- 
ties are so ininimal that even the category of parallel does not 

'-^t-'i-'-- y ' 

These include 1) Jas. 2 : 3=Mt . 7:12; Lk . 6:31 where James 

specifically cites Lev. 19:18b; 2) Jas. 4:10--Mt. 5:3-5 where the 
saying of Jesus in Mt , 23:12; Lk , 14:11; 18:14b is alluded to; 3) 
Jas, 4;13=-Mt, 6:34; Lk, 12:16-21 where the single word "tomorroV'/" 
ties these passages together; and 4) Jas. 5:7~8=Mt. 24:3,27,37,39 
where the familiar term for the eschatological coming, Trapovcria , 

Finally, there are a couple of texts where the 

is employed. 

themes of Jesus ' pre.; 

ching contributed to the inclusion of these 

topics in the church's paraenesis; 1) the call to endurance in 
trials in Jas. 1:12 (Mt. 5; 11-1 2a par,; 10:12); and 2) the theme 

; f fa i 

1. Ci -i L 

h and action in Jas. 2:14 (Mt. 7:21 

6:46) , For a 

complete categorization of all the parallels see the charts in 
chapter 7 . 

6,0 In addition to setting forth the minor parallels, we will 
attempt in this appendix to analyze the complicated history of 
the listing of parallels between James and the Synoptic gospels. 
The presence of parallels has been noticed by scholars for a long 
time; already in 1886 WeLzsacker noted that the connection was a 
long observed fact. Most exegetes handle the similarities by 
first listing the individual parallels and then examining a few 
of the most important occurrences. When an author simply lists 
the various parallels, it is difficult in most cases to determine 
if the author personally decided on this set of parallels or has 

merely repeated an eistabl ashed tradition. A fev^ scholars indi- 
cate indebtedness to others. Riedel notes that he is simply 
repeating Reuss ' list. Davies takes over Kittel's list but 
specifies which parallels he:- considers most important, thus 
revealing some personal judgment on his pjart.SE- Toxopeus indi- 
cates both that he purposely narrowed down the list of Spitta and 
that he expressly differs with certfiin £>pecifics of Holtzmann's 
list, thus maintaining a more critical attitude than some. On 
the opposite end of the spectrum, von Scden attempts to draw 
together the most complete list possible by combining the 
research of Reuss, Hcltzmann, Beyschlag, and Brlickner . This com- 
bined of von Soden is the standard that many scholars seem 
to employ in their decision about the legitimate pairallels 
between the Epistle of James and. the Synoptic gospels. 

All the major parallels wei'e already recognized in the 
19th century. In our century commentators have given special 
attention to the list of Kittel , although particularly two of his 
parallels are of poor quality ( Jas . 2:ll=Mt. 5;21; Jas . 2:15=Mt. 
6:25) and have not been followed except by who uncritically 
transmit his list. Shepherd has offered a few nev^ creative 
parallels and has been followed by many recent English com- 
mentators as well as MuBner in the German tradition. 

The divergent lists indicate that commentators have- 
operated with different standards in determining v-jhat is a 
reminiscence to the Jesus-tradition. The four biggest exag- 

S^Davies seems to have accidentally skipped Kittel's 

parallel, Jas. l:17=Mt. 7:11; Lk , 11:13 

gerators of possible parallels are Davids, Spitta, Mayor, and 
Schlatter who produce 52, 50, 65, and 57 respectively. Spitta 
has a certain purpose in mind; one by one he points out closer 
parallels in Jewish literature, thus completely negating the 
seeming authority of a lengthy list of parallels to the gospels, 
Davids subdivides his list into six different ruDirics wherein 20 
out of the 52 are described as close allusions, thus indicating 
that he is not naively assuming that James is conscioiisly refer- 
ring to dominical sayings on more than fifty occasions. Mayor 
eind .Schlattei:' , on the other hand, have lists of reminls;ce rises 
that are ridiculously long. One similar word in some cases indi- 
cates a paralle;!. In contrast, other writers like McNeille, 
Lohse , Wikenhauser , Grant, and Ropes have very high sta,ndards and 
dismiss most similaritic-js as merely indicating a common cultural 
or religious background. We hope that the various categories 
which we have enuiiiera.ted'^^' will facilitate the difficult process 
of distinguishing between true allusions to source material and 
inere incidental parallels of content or terminology. The mean 
number of eritrie,s in a of parallels is about 18. We have 
recognized eight conscious allusions to Jesus' sayings and nine 
important themes of Jesus' px'eaching which have been mediated to 
James through the paraenetic tradition of the church. 


Cf . ch . 7 , section 1.1. 

Appendix II 

1.0 In categorizing the literary parallels between James and 
the Synoptic tradition, we have distinguished the following 
groupings :'2 1) quotations or citations; 2) allusions without an 
introductory formula (also called reminiscences^ • ; 3) parallels 
of content, 4) parallels of terminology; 5) parallels of both 
common content and similar terminology; 6) common references to 
other writings or oral traditions such as the OT, sayings of 
Jesus, a possible Christian catechism, or commonly recited wisdom 
sayings. Ixi the following lists we have underlined the similar 
vocabulary and designated the divergent content in parenthesis 
after the textual parallels. 

2.1 Parallels between James and 1 Peter 

James 1 Peter 

1:1 XQLq du)6eKa 4)uAatc, 1:1 eicAeKcoic; jTape/r id/'ifio tQ 

xal'c, ey tf7 c5 laa no pg c5 1 go /r op ac;, 

{the whole Dispersion) (the Dispersion in Asia Minor) 

1:2 naaau xapai/ hynaaaOe ... 1:6 et^ 2 ayaAALaaOe, oAi-yoi- 

ozau 7T£ Lp aa^ orc;^ , apzt el Seou sot'u^ XunnQei^zec, 

nepnreotne tto lklAo t-c; , ei/ noiizi.\aLC, ne Lpaau olc , 

1:3 y LuuJcrKouxec, ox L l-.l'Cua 

.1° ^Q.^:..|.tLkOil kHMiL IQC, ZI,ia;t£y__^ to dOKi^ loy Ojawv zjjc^ "Jo'.'ceLy.c, . 

Kaxepya^ezai vnojjounu . eupedT, e [q enaTuoV kqJ So^au . 

iv dTTOKaAutijc L 'I»;ctou XpLaiou- 

(temporal result) ( eschatological result) 

"The parallels of this appendix have been derived from 
the lists of Dibelius, Mayor, Meyer, Moffatt, MuBner , Spitta, and 
Toxopeus . 

^Cf . ch. 7 , section 1.1. 

■^Sometimes a reminiscence suggests an unconscious repeti- 
tion or imitation, but we will use it to refer to an intentional 
recalling of something said or done in the past. 

^^^zai' rre ipcrc/i lo iq tou i^p ioxou nabnp.aaLi' 

7>ep LTieo'fjZe 7tc ikiAo iq , XS?^fi^^^ ^ 

,L : c^ y L I' UCJK. O V T C C, O "U I. L I--' Q KQ L 

<^ U oQiCi.p.LOh' U^ui;/ X r] C 7TlO"T£(uC, £ Z-' X [7 CX71' OKCXAV >4j€. L TifiQ OOt^)"jC^ CXVXOl 

KCXX-CpyCX^^ CXG L V7T O^ O P' I'j U = XCtp 'QX.€~ (jyCiKA L W^ £ I'' O L . 

( T O Tfi V) C' T' 'p. 1 -p p c; ] ■} 1 f- pi -f ]--'i w "T i p< 11 ,•"" » ^- i p. <? r- H p, "h Ci 1 O rT i n P- 1 T"^ P-^ '^c "; "; 1 ^" D f" n 1 o ■>'*' \ X 

KcL i;; euTTpezre la to J Trpoo'iVTTOu 

outwc, Kal o TrAouaioc, , . . pxii^eL eic, toy aluiya. 

^ t ^^" ^ e^-'OcA n p 4^ £ X Of I w M.3^£Sj3.A,9 ^ 

^ w " c {|) C^ 3 i. X .' / L, C, ii^' i'7 Q _j^ Z'^ 2. G ll " C B' O H S S 'Ll Z 1 QT QT 3 

e =-."j ■" crown of life 3 c , ,r iziuov xBc; 6cgr7c; 

upon enduring sufferers) „ - ;n of qlory) 

pujrapiay kgl nep taae lai' KgKigc KaKLai/ kq l Travxa doAo}/ ko l 

U 7T OlCp LCTS; L C KCf C fj (9 G J.' O U C, . . , 

€1/ Trpavzrsx L , 1:25b xavzc de eaziu 

Se^acjQe zov ep.^vzov Xoyov x6 prijia xc euayyeA LCjGcy 

x6y cSuvau€i/oy croiCTa i 2:2 ,,. lya Ci-' cruxu auErjSr/xe 

xcfc, 41UXQC, upwi^ . etc, CTiJXijpiay 

(putting away two evils) (putting away 5 different evils) 

J. : ^.V € L Z iC, SO}Z€ L Q priCKOC, £ L lyQ L 1:18 ... £AUXpuiOYiZ€ CK 

, , . xoijxov uqxqloq n c^pr/cri-cc lq ^ xriQ pic^xcxj,.cic^ uyiuJi/ oj^^QCJXpopn'C 

1:27 SpnaKela KaGapa icai auLca'tcc, 2:5 ... jrveuuat lkqq Ouaiar 
rrapa xoj £e,w Kal rraxp I avxr] eaxLv eujrpociaeKtoug xy 9£:u 
(vain religion x/s . pure religion) (vain lifestyle vs. spiritual 

sacrifices ) 

2.1 1.1 ri £y iIiL9,9ii,ZL?2};,Iiii''+'' '-'-^^^'^ l;l?a xo.v '^iJj2i?5yiI9Ziiii-l''^'^'-J"^ Kp L'.-'0/.-''xa 

cxexe xi)u TTicrxLy 1:21 xouc, Sl' auxov n±axovc, eiq Oeou 

xov Kuplov niiuv 'liicrov xov eyeipavxa avxcv ck ve.Kpui'' 

Xpiaxou xr/Q cijbg,nr, ko L ooBsiv avxh dbvxa 

{ shoV'J no impartiality) (God judges impartiality) 

-■A3f.. - 

; I ouk ct'uxui |3 ACfcri'Tip. ouo' I J-' 4 :4 ISAcfcrtpr/poUL'Tc'L, 

KraAoi.' oi/oua 4:14 ei. oyeidiCeu^e eu di'oaazi. 

(blaspheme Christ or God) (blasphese the people) 

2 ; 8 CiyCXTTY}Cf£. LC, 1 Pe t,l;22 2:17 4:8 JTpO J'CX-.' ZiuU 

xcv TiArKJlou aav aAAnAoLu; xiiu a6£?\fidzriza rriiy e lq eavzouc, 

(Lev. 19:18b) ( church ins true t ion ) 

Jas. 3:13b 6ei£.azbj Ik 1 Pet. 2:12a 

xa epya auxou ej/ Trpavzrix i ao^LaQ eu toic; eSi^^ecriy exouzec, KgAjjp' 
(show v^orks by good conduct) (good conduct among Gentiles) 

cpzeuQeu , 

€K ZbJ'U Y]30VUV UUiui/ ZUJU CFCfplC LiC(Ji> €TT lOviX LWU 

Z UJ p 0~ X Q_CX^ X 6p O p C L-^ U V C( IX L i.^' £ Q O' X p CH"- C X* G 4/ X C^ L 

^ 'i^' XG I. C, pbACCJLX iJpWi-*" ; ,'X-.^XQ '^- X ■--. '-p'^'XX'Q 

(passions at war ■within) (desires at war with soul) 

.5 hiL5i)a hZL£i2.11iEtli:.£,L&, SilliLPlill^HiLILCf t , ^ "^ ~ -' I f 

Pj--? / J ^.p, i' O I. C D C- C- I, O (u O" C .P'' X^P '' '^' - ^ " ^ ^ 

^eiupnasis on nuixxxxxyj ^ t.j.„ 



4 : oc Qyv lo"G"X£ Kcxpo LCfC , d Lilux*-' L . 1 ; 22a i.cfc, 4;UXOp upcux I'lyi-' lico i.ep 

4 ' -^ ""^^ „P)dZi,.?r„l:™P'l ^' Q.J:^ '"^ ° ''-^ ^ S?{lj§h'~ Hl^ ^''^ Q D ^ '^ '^"^ ^'^ 

£yo;Trioy Kuplou D/To xr)!/ Kpa'xa ico/ ;<£ ipa xou Qeov , 

KCX t l)ppO"£: I PHU!^ • Lt'Q' Uy.Cf;C, y<£p'2'r/ £ i.' iXCi'tpp 

(before the Lord) (under the mighty hand of God) 

o : Sci o KilMPi^ ''■-= Up. t'.y iccr L 1 : 18a ov 'pOupzo lq , cxpyupiu,: r) 

c agyvQoc, kcxxiwxct;. 2ipP:'--*^'^¥ ' £Auxpw9:'7X£ 

(ak)out material riches) (about spiritual riches) 

5 ; 6 e^icyeucraxe toy 6 JKaLov , 3; 18b p.Pi'i5)i_qQ urrep QxSiiCidy ,., 
oOk cryx txaaCTCxai upi^'. 0ai^axi:iJ0e ic, pey ctq'pkl 

( the oppressed one as the (Jesus as the righteous dead man) 
righteous dead man) 

5:8b f] jrapouaLQ- xou Kuplcu 4:7 rravzuv 6e x6 xeAoQ iiyyppK e y . 

i],;££pK£_p . (connected with an (connected with an exhortation to 

exhortation to be patient) pray) 


5 ; 9b Loci) 6 K.£j.xiv 
TipO X(Ji/ Bvpi: 

' U/ I'- c.. u \ 

[ciOSllTiSX QTMniO J, 2.TIQ j 

<^ iu M X CcCj KC( L V €■ ,Kp O U Q = 

(against wild profligacy) 

5; 10 UTToSeLYiia . , . 
TnQ KaKOTiaQ lac, 

/ ^..^ ^.; .--, y. y.^ p^ .j., ^ _ ^-, ^.^ ^^ p-^ ^^. ^^.^ 1 ^ 

2:21 ujfoAiiaJTdvcjt^ \)'noypoxi\xoiJ 
2:19 i^6.ay;j^v dcSiKOiQ. 

examp i e or patient 

} a..^ . U : i. ii ct y|p O 7T Q" I--' X Cj l^ O S 
, . ,11 f / C- jU )>' U C I! £ 

' aaainst swear ina ) 

aydrrny sKieiM"/ exoi^'zec, 
(in favor of loving) 

iba egCfit 

,c7t?e , . 

i . ji 4 v., U 

V LbJ piW/viJ/' L 

CX/\/\i'i/\U} i,' OTTWC, J-Qt^nX^* 

(hea,lirig by confession of sins 
ciiid praver ''< 


U ci k^ j-C X;> J. J- '-X ^ ^ 1 -y j 

/; AC? I'' Uj J-' fc. i-^ O^ 'L f Cf .A/\Q 

err I xoy Tromei-a 

i : k 5 ri T £ yap 
e rre cTt £} ct $ n i: e ;/ 
(return to the Shepherd i: 
VGX" s 1 on I 

^..^ . ^ U' y -^ ^-^ W w ~'v c. ^ ti^- o ^. i- 

O O 77 CC^X p^£ tpQ'Q -up, CXp 'C (J AC.'/ 


K. CXK U 7T c £ I TT A f/ Sp C Q]J Q'p X_L U ■-■' 

covers ■ j.ove covsrs a, niuj,' 

S J u U J. t i t u O: s o f s i n s 

"1-, .-J, ,'-^ 

oi k- S? Li O ■i'' J, fc^ S 

2 ) Allusions ; noi 

a) Parallels 
5 : 8b-=4 ; 7 . 

>f both terminology and conteni 

: ^ J. — 1 : Z Jj ■"■ 4; ; ^ ; 4 : / — u ; o ■" 9 ; ■^ : i. l^ ™ t? : O 

/'■' r-\ ■;-■^ 

Pet. 4:13; 1:12=3:14; 4:14; 

:7 = 2 ; 5 ; 2 ; 8=1 : 22 ; 2:17; 4 : 

o h ~ i^ ■ '^i '-1 • "^ - I n -- 

5/ Only siiBilar terminology; Jas , 1:12=^1 Pet. 5:4; 1:26^1:18 

2:1 = 1:17,21; 2:7 = 4:4,14; 3;13b=2:12a; 4 : 1 b = 2 : 1 1 b ; 4:7=-5;5a 
4:8c = l:22a; 5:3a=l:lSa; 5: 6=^3; 18b; 5:12a=4:Sa; 5:16a=2:24c 

6) Common references to other material: 

.^1 .^, m T — — - 

■ '■- y ■ 

5 : 20^4: 8b ( Prcv . IC : 12 ) . 


■^ n ,. T 1,T 

. Pet . . 3 : 14=:Mt . 5:10 and 

-A: i 

c^ Possibls orin'iitivs c5.Lt;v, 1*0.^111 

'put LinO' uxL Vj. ces .j. : j. O — j. : siJ ; 

■J- ir e t . 

1 - ^ 1 i:^ 9 ■ 

D ; 1 . -^ ~ 1 : i . 

"subjection in humility but resisting subjection to the 
devil" 4:7=5:8-9; 4:10=5:6. 

oince Jame! 

ayings while Peter 

' style is in the form of terse proverbial 

-..-^ 4- ^ -j" -1 /-. ^"^ C^ ^J -I" V-, .-^ 1—5 -j,-^ ,^, W ", 1-^ ■" 1 . 

ity that James or Peter directly employed the o 

■hi-, c;, Ti ' 

K ,„ 

.'lie Dest explanation for the similarities is the thesis 
that both James and Peter drew from catechetical teaching 
developed in the Jewish-Christian community. ^ The parallels of 
terminology and content betray coinmon teaching patterns on the 
f'; \j o '' Q c Xi 'ri o It jt s "1 '' c 1 Ti cf J. 11 Ti X' J. i3. J- s 1 V) ~0- 1" 1~ X jri c[ o LI. c w jT c 3- i Ti \^ J. o s 3 . o. n. Cx 
being humbly subject to God and human authorities while resisting 
the subjection of the devil. '^ The same general ordering of 
material is also apparent,^-' James and Peter both drew from this 
primitive oral catechism or established church teaching in order 
to remind the Christians of the Diaspora what they had formerly 

meisorized and should have put into action.*^-* 

H' ~; 1 ■»-- t" K o. '^ iTi f 

above , en. i , n . 6 , 

: 10 = 1 ; 24 ; 1 : 21=2 : 1-2 ; 

4 : 7==5 :8"9. 

"For examples of authors who discern literary dependence 
soe on. 1, n. 16-17, 

■'Laws, James, 25 supports a coEimon geographical back- 
ground in Rome but admits that "the contrasts betv>?een the dis- 

probable that they derived their common material in the same 
situation. " 

'g Hia-^r-a:!- Primitive Catechism, 42--43, 

°Cf, Carrinaton's dlagicni; 

-'See the chart of Cadoux, Thoux|ht of_ Jame^s, 39. 

parallels with 1 Peter are most visible precisely 

j£s , 2:1-3:12 where James' peculiar style, vocabulary, and 
employment of extended discourse are most visible. Likewise in 1 
Peter the comiiionly mentioned parallels occur in the very sections 

;ij.urch catechetical 
teaching. Halson explains, 

most frequently identified as 

here are definite affinities with some of the catechetical 

s^-'cis . X r /.-^-^ v\^a Lu X ret , i f D- i ; J as . 

sections of 1 Peter, e,( 

, ,- 4-- y, i 115 ^ -f- 

W ..:, u X 

-. V, 

as usee ; Jas , 

J 3. ! 

^ j^ ^^^ 4^^ I ^ i A '^, v^ *' ; T ^"^ "^ /"^ ^"■L T' ^'^ f '^ m"^ '~*^ "*V* '''^ ^?'^ '"'^ .■^' f"°^ '"1 i""^' /"'-. "H ''.'^ .'"^ V'^ T' '\P' ^L^ 

r ri i, . J. , <-.,'* j,i.i i.«iiJ.Cii L-Ue :3<ailit3 pta&SctUcr x j, vjiii ijAA 

, 1 O Vv J. !_ J, i a. i" e >. . 1 , i ^-' , .J c t;. . .i , i: j. vV j. I. Li. 

;, _. L-a.i oUjuiuciry, J aS , 4,1 svltii i, ir!c: L . a.: I 1 1 ; 

5,5 in v^hich the same quotation from LXX 

VI .X =-...; i L,::.te- tec^juO S U, D b* t« .1 t U 1. 2 o,u ^w' a. u o -...-• C lOx 

in which the same passage from LXX Proverbs 10 is u 

is remarkable that James s 
verses form the OT , indeed tc 

J reKia.rkable to 


. ana Hanson nave 
:hese traditional texts belonged to the primitive 
echism and were employed by different authors to 
expound upon their characteristic emphases. With regard to Is. 
40:6 James compares the Vv'ithering flower of the field to the rich 
while Peter calls attention to the abiding word of God, a phrase 
employed as a catchword tying 1 Pet. 1:23, 24, and 25 together. 
Concerning Prov, 3:34 James concentrates on the word "grace" to 
support his conclusion that God gives more grace (4:6a) while 

J. w r^- -'^ ,■-- w O ,—• ,-". .-^ +- -. ,-^ -*-. 1 r\ 
V/ -I. » L-' 1 J- . *i / ^ ^ w t. J, O * 1 .i, H \J H 

•^ -^Halson, "James: 'Christian wisdom?'" SE 4:313-3; 

, n . 


theme of humility. Likewise, with regard to 

T~? ~,^ ,'-■. T *" "^ "^ . ■■. O T -"T '•';■'' i"-- -■'' .'"■^ ''x r~' i'~^ "p-i 1 '.' i"~ •■~- ■^ ^'^ — ■ "I" 'f" i"> f^\ I'"- f^ =1^ "!-■! "i >"*! 1' r "^ (-"\ ■'~r i~-\ 4^ -i" •-■•. r— v /— -i ■^ ■?*-! v-s ,-". -i■^ 

! ' r ; 1 \ ,■ . : ; j ! y ,j ^i 1 1 : J-" i--j i; ij 1^ t^ f \/ ' — " ^( 1^ ; I ^, \ i i ' tr i tT" i j ^ 5!^ V ^ i i t ' CJ i- i L i L OS -J i ' ' J t'" ? 

coveirs a multitude of sins v^hile Peter asserts that love covers a 

verse is emphasized, the most logical conclusion is that all 
thrsc' cf th-ssB OT oassagss Vi?ere popul<'3.r and. belovtfd sayiriG's which 
had found a home in the ethical tradition of the church. 
3.1 Parallels Between James and Paul's Early Epistles 


I ^ ^ -^ ~^ ^ Cj CX"£ X u.* ,. ^ ^ ^^ 

^ ' -- J o :. rr th c ]-£ enf^urance ) {suffering works endurance) 

1 ; 6a cxLzEiziu Se Rosn. 4:20 etc cSe oti/ CTTCfV-'eA icfy 

e i.' rr Lcrt c L iiqdcu 6j.a.i<.[^Lvdp.€i-'OC, ' xou 0ecu ou oieK£iL6ri zij GTrtaclg 

oAA ' e yeduyaudof] X'tj Tjj-crzsj, 

OT I. Q7TC 6^£0U TiC_Lp_G'C O'ilCX L ' OQ OVK ■£CTO"C L UfiCfQ TFC tpCJCT© i/ J-'Ci I 

(God does not (God not let you be tempted 

beyond your strength) 

1:15b n 6e Roa. 5:12b S lcx njc; 6:23 cd ydp oipiljuta 

h|ia£)cj,a aFoxcAeaSe laa ctyxr£T_laQ zuq ,d|jcf£t^_igc; 

(context is temptation) (context about justification) 

1 : 18d Gncxg^iU t L,:-'Cf Rom. S ; 2-3 x.riv ciT]O.Q_vriy 

XijJV O.VX..OV KT LCp.Q"C UJ y . COU TTy eUfJCjfTOC, EX'--^'^ "CEQ 

(firstfruits of his creatures) (first fruits of the Spirit) 

1:21 6 1.6 cajoQefiefO I iraaav Rom. 13:12b d/ioSwyeaa ovi^' 

pvnapiav Kal rrep Lcxjelav KaKiac, xa epyo' xou aKoxouc; 

(specific exhortation) (general exhortation) 

.1. . i J w o c. (1 u j,ju j'-:.. -^'wif..^ c Cl, i- Oju L.f' rcuju. ii , j. %/ 

xcAeioy . , . OVK ctK.poax!]c, ou yap o i. ^KpoaxaL JdOROu 

e 7T c A 'oap. o v i) c, y e v b\i e y o c, d c ica c o l /rapd t u 9 e k) , 

.$,^.£iCf .^.i?J-Jli '/ Q epyou , ouxoQ d AA ' ot 50U7_xac v6\iq\) 

liaKap LOQ ev xp rroinaei aOxou eaxai, 6 LKcxnoBriaovxaL . 

(hearing and doing problem) (Jew and Gentile problem) 

/ o'K £ t Q . I'l u) p o c y e I' it CI 9 u) 

6 : 3 

£_l yap .;^.,,^^_-,;,^^ 

<}i p £ I' CX 7T CX X Ca € CX V X 1-' 

j^j. -i. 

j^il » e: 

^ 1 -f ) 

^ ; ^; , % ea£ yc 
e tatKOn etc 


TTTwxcc ey pvnapg ecrdnxL, 
Kal eyeyecrSe .KpLxai 

£..k£i7j. yjy.SSmJii '^ ^ O V )'j p (iJ S^ ; 

(poor man m shabby cloth.- 

.illy w i .1 1. C. J. .J o y i i o. y -.-J y u •;- ; 

i ,^ .^, T,^ "! .1 . O ^ '^ A . . "D .'^ .s.> ^ >! . ^ 

. . , £ycreAj3(ua'i..y de xj] iricJxeL 

LoLwxai n aTTicxoL npocfhaiiiiai-'eaOe , 

(outsiders enter (v^'elcome the weak 

church) in faith) 

TTAOucrLouc ev TrlaTec 
iGod chose the poor 5 

1 Cor. 1:27b eSeAeliJlo ,£ .££2&' 

2 7a dAAd xa liwpa xou Koaiiou 

4^ ^ C tyC K'CtX Ca LC"X-.^ y {7 XOUQ 0"O^OUQ 

(God chose what is foolish) 


( 1" I. C h 1 3.K & p (. 

p U, j^. 

b : ^ , 4 Kp_l L J]J2 liiJU ... Kp)j 

P i. a 

aoes to unchristian court 


■p T-^ , I 
1 f- 

■ r f 

V. i Oi 

pAO_y xoy vcp, ot' xpp 

-^^ C p (J y 7T C L / / O Q' L 

i u s^ i. ^ c^ _L <1 V'V , 


Rom. 2.22-23 6 Aeyojy 
tiii fcL£iX£ii^n^ • t • ^O^'^^^ ^^ -''=' Ei4 t^-r yi-.-^y po LXCt-^C i-P ; . . . ^ 

ycyovap ZLSUSiiiM; ''^ 'T Q iiOJiou , ""^ d i^..^ x p, 2IQ£C(§da£tjp xou iiO]ao_u 

xcy Pf ;. ox ipa^e lc ' 

(breakinc one law vvhile 

keeping another) 

ommand you believe in) 

Cor, 8:4 oidapey oxi 

2:19 o'o 31 LCX e v € c p ox l 

e_i2 eCTXLi/ b 0£G(~ . . . U u- o c L <.., ppUl, c i. pi; K- LL^. 

(demons believe in one God) !V>?e believe in one God) 
Kal xd datpoyiQ' n lctzev- 2 Cor. 11:14 auxdc, yap 6 aazauac, 

ouaiv Kal qip LcTCTCucriiy . pezacrxripax iXeza i etc, ayyeAoy 'fjuxoi 

(demons believe in God) (Satan is an angel of light) 

;;^1,2j ' AiliJoaE ••• Rom. 4; 2-3 ei 'Ai3£aa!,| Gal. 3:6 iccoujq ' A|3pgd|i 
. . ""^ Kcc i. eT[/\ripil)9ri ex£ '- KaOxnpa . . . 

__ _ l!IAiZL§.H.iZ£,i:l sA '' h§.£.bl9;.Pz .^ili-^JiJ.'-i^'SLii 

(Abraham justified (Abraham not justified by works) 
by worics) 

T —, ,— O . '^ -1 I? /-^ -^ '"■■ .. ''^ O '■'"' -^ 1 '"^ -^ C -. 

J dt. . d. : £, <-± i\OiTi. . o : ,i, C ual . .<. : J, od. 

opQxc H.S.t Aoy L <^ cp. £ y Q yop 

^■^'" ZIJ:;ii3.§;,Mia IICVOV , X^^P^-Q SJ2_iiy*i l-'C|JlOU , CGi/ |1 17 c5 LG 7T_LO"TeuJCj 

iiiOt justirieo. by (justification, by faitl 

o . J. O '-lUK t-C' ^ L !..' Qui. ;; i; -L'xLSi- ■-' -*■ "'-Oi. , .i : oD (JufJ tUi-- Ot. uu 

Q'AAa exrlytLoc,, i£iiXb.£;'''j ' SaLfjoiJ iuicriq, . 2; 14 fliUXAJS^Q ^*^ aySpWTroQ 
(wisdom from above vs. (wisdom of this age vs. 

unspiritual wisdoni) hidden v/isdom of the Spirit) 

o:iD OJTGp yQp J- dOI^ , <i : .-i OJ\OV -/up of 1 oCC . 14: jo 

iiiA,9.S Mi.i .§.i2.i:t?£ la , vp.Lv ^ijkcc, Kol |;£j-C , GU yap ecjzn' 

OKO I Qi^^iii^OiiiS-iii K^- - OUX'- CTGpKLKOL CCXS G KCX XCXO'ZaCjJ. a C, 

Trav (pavAov Trpaypa , Ka I KQ'td dy0pu/7Toy a deoQ akXa eiprii^uc,, 

TT £ p t T]Ci X C- L X O ; 

Optuy Twy !Zd(J2J3JiJiii.9,ti§,H'^'*'' puoe Trap iCTxayexe ey xolq fc£4'^"'^§o;.^-b P-OV 
£].-■' TOiQ tL£ A£CT_i_i;' up(j;y; xQ' |-i§A:''; upfji' gtfAo q i' X l 03 P CfX_£yJ 0|J, £ y o y 

C\o LKIC(Q X [7 G'^,iOp)X Ip Xp ^Gpp XOU .VOOQ pOU 

(passions warring in (sin in members) ( tv^o laws warring in 

your iiieabers ) ay members) 

4:4 p (JjiAca xov Kocrpou Rom. 8:7 xd uipouniia xrjp aapKop 

(love of the world) (the flesh is the enemy of God) 

4:5b ;Tpdc, c^eoyoy Gal. 5:17 r> yap aap£ Rom. 8 ; 9b 

e7Tl7TO0eL TO iJJ/gji^ e7Tl0Up£L KQxd TOU 7ijjj;X)}2axoc, 2Iip£.iiiii2 tJoou 
c KCTXpKLcrey ei/ i/pii.' o iKC l e^' up it', 

(huiiian spirit) (divine Spirit vs. flesh) (Spirit of God) 

Jas. 4:11b Rom, 2:1b fiy 5 yap Rom. 14:4 

Kjo^ywy xoi^' dcSoAclsoy aOxou KQ±iye lc, xoij exepou , 6 KgiliJuv a/\AcxpLov 

KaxaAaAei yopou Ka'i aeavzoi^ xaxaKp Ive ic; 

Kp'iuei vop-ov' (judging (judging another - (not judge the 

another- judging the law) condemning yourself ) servant of another) 


4:15 iau a Kvptoc, OeAgorj l Cor. 4:19 eau 6 Ku p loq 0£A//an 
(economic travel plans) (ecclesiastical travel plans) 

Jas. 5: 12b 2 Cor. 1 : 17b 

n a gouAeuopaL Kara oapKa ^ovAeuoiia t , 
nxw (5e viiuu TO ual val tva (i nap' ejjol xo ua I P'ai 

KQ_l tjD o u gu_ , ^9Jz. L9. 9R oA '• 

'iva jjr; UTTO Kpiaiu neaqxe . 
(concerning oaths) (concerning making plans) 

3,2 The Categories 

1) Quotations: none. 

2) Allusions: Jas. 2.21=Rom. 4:2; 2:24=Roiu. 3:28; Gal. 2:16. 

3) Parallels of both content and terminology; Jas. l:2-4=Rom. 
5:3-5; 1:13 = 1 Cor. 10:13b; l:15b = Rom. 5 ; 1 2b ; 6:23; l:25=Rom. 
2:13; 2:5=1 Cor. 1:27; 3:16=1 Cor. 3:3b. 

4) Parallels of content alone: Jas. l:21=Rom. 13:12b; 2:2,4=1 
Cor. 14:23; 2:6 = 1 Cor. 6:2,4; 2:19=1 Cor. 8:4; 2 Cor. 11:14; 
3:15 = 1 Cor. 2:6b; 4:lb==Rom. 6:13; 7:23; 4:llb=Rom. 2:1b; 14:4. 

5) Parallels of terminology alone: Jas. l:6a=Rom. 4:20; l:18=Rom. 
8:23; l:26==Gal. 6:3; 1 Cor. 3:18; 2:2,4=Rom. 14:1; 2:10 = Gal. 5:3; 
3:15=1 Cor. 2:14; 3:16=1 Cor. 14:33; 4:4=Rom. 8:7; 4:5b=Rom. 8:9; 
Gal. 5:17; 4:15=1 Cor. 4:19; 5:12b=2 Cor. 1:17b. 

6) Parallels caused by common source material: 

a) OT: Jas. l:15b=Rom. 5:12; 6:23 (derived from Gen. 3); 
2:8=Rom. 13:8b, 9c; Gal. 5:14 (Lev. 19:18); 2:ll=Roffi. 2:22-23 
(Ex. 20:13; Dt . 5:17); 2:23=Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6 (Gen. 15:6). 

b) Paraenetic material based on important themes in Jesus' 
preaching: Jas. l:25=Rom. 2:13 (Mt. 7:24-26; Lk. 6:46-49); 
2:5=1 Cor. ,1:27 (Jas. 2:5 from Mt . 5:3; Lk. 6:20; 1 Cor. 
1:27 from Mt. 11:25; Lk . 10:21); 2:8=Rom. 13:8b; Gal. 5:14 
(Mt. 22 :39 par. ) . 

c) Possible primitive catechism: 
"rejoicing in trials" Jas. l:2-4=Rom. 5:3-5 
"putting off vices" l:21=Rom. 13:12; 3:16=1 Cor. 3:3b. 

d) Well-known wisdom sayings: Jas. l:26=Gal. 3:6; 1 Cor. 3:18. 
3.3 Conclusions 

Whereas the parallels in 1 Peter follow the same general 
order of James, the Pauline parallels are scattered randomly 


:er no significant 

ara J.- 

thi'aughout the epistle, 
lel-s are detected in the discourse sections of James (2:i--3;12), 
in Paiil the most noteworthy parallels are located in the second 
of these discourses ( Jas , 2:14-26 treatise on faith and works). 
What does this reveal to us about the relationship of James and 

~,;^.c- n' 

Christian tradition to have concluded that the law is impossible 
to keep and that faith alone can justify. There is no evidence 
to indicate that preChristian Judaism posited a contrast between 
justification by faith alone and salvation by works or even that 
prePauline Christianity was consc. 
Jew would point to Gen, 15: 

this whole "" non- Jewish ' tearing apart of faith and works had 

O. _L i- t-' CX L^. y '^J ^^ O j. i 1"^ w ...^ ^-^ v-i- f L Ot Lf, -.- ! ■ C-l ■ — ' ^ ,. ,1 

about this new situation; his teaching of justification by faith 

aoart from the -works of the law must have mfluencea 

-1 +■ K a 

stian cominuni ty beiore me 


eoistle could take place 

This priority, however, should not lead us to postulate 

ibea m James 

de?^endence upon certi 

Pauline passages such as Romans 3.^^- 

-^^cf. Dibelius and Greeven , James, 
l^ibid. , 179. 

1 4 '^ -P Q _, „ ,J ,-, -,., .-. T? J- V, •>• ,- (5 ^ '!-• f- " c- 'J '^' 

• 4 4 Fi 

'J~\ ~ ",.^ O "1 -i, '-. •■ ,— 1 T,"^ -^ ..— - FYS ^->. v' -™' — ■ -'■"■ -"^ "^ " ">"' ■^- 4* s,"^ ' "^ •? '"^f T" ""'J '"^ "'"^ f2x f^ i" r^, .Ci cr" "■ "^ "5 1 "" '^ 1 '"^ T^. ' \* i"l -t^i "^■'' ''~S s^ 

ose an acquairitaiice with definite Pauline slogans, it also 

f the letters of Paul upon the part of Jas is out of the 
uestioii. He is f ami liar with only the slogans, not the con- 

Although Paul ani Ja,;T!es employ identical terminology, they 
presuppose a different understanding of ?faith, works, the law, 
and justification. For Paul faith assumes obedient trust in God, 
but the definition, of faith eisployed Dy Jaines in his discourse on 

(2:14-26) involves a mere verbal assent to 

• .Jk j^ w 1, K> i ij w .1 X a U-l ^ X ci J- ■-, i i 

-- O ^1. ^ _!. V ^, ; -.U. ;. I '.J, t„ L 

stood as containing evervthincj necessary tci receive salvaticoi. 
Por JaiTiss faith b'^ itsslf is nouativoly concsivsd as inerG' 
m t o 1 1 a c t ua. 1 a,ssa'nc isoiatao. ri'oiu a J.ifa ql ctooci vvco'^^a ,; i?'or /raui 

vast complex of cultic regulations of which circumcision is the 
initiatory demand. 1^ On the other hand, James understands the 
epya i'6p.ou as moral prescriptions and acts of charity grounded in 
love and mercy (1:27; 2:1-13; 3:18; 5:4). What James calls works 

^^Dibelius and Greeven, Jame_s, 29. 

•^^'There are tvio definitions of faith running thirough the 
Epistle of James. In. the 13 verses of James' discourse on faith 
and works the noun niaxic, is employed 12 times and the verb 
rriaxeuu twice to indicate a theoretical assent to teachings such 
as God is one (2; 19). Throughout the rest of the epistle v>?e 
mcDunter a totally different understanding of faith. In 1:3,6; 

c? .1 i ^ t^ i..l i i I. ■:_. X 

the content of such trust. We take this to be James' normal 
understanding of faith. The alteration of his definition of 
faith in Jas, 2:14-26 proves that James is influenced by source 
material foreign to his own thought. 
•^"^Cf. Davids, James, 50-51, 

s the fruit of th.6 SDirit fGal. 5:22). -'■'-^ 
inct 1 f 1 rat i nn is an initiatory act of union with Christ 

\i:^ c:^, fs> 

,^ ^ A 4- 1 , 


2 4 ] 

■" o:. U. -i- J iJ. C:^' L J- ~ u. L. O. 

xUi j>sSJls&& J u, i> i, .1. .1, .i, ;,- 0. I,, .i V,-- 1 i ,J- S t-iiC tocijUf CIS. tsd .i. V d I. lUil \Z , 1 4i 

Not only is the content of their terminology disparate, 
but they speak to different audiences. Paul is wrestling with a 
legalistic JudaisiB where circumcisi'on and keeping the lai«i of 
Moses are considered the conditions for justif iceit ion . On the 
other hand, James addresses an audience where faith has become 
sterile and incapable of producing good works. Therefore, James' 
allusions to Paul's doctrine of faith and works { Jas . 2:21=Ro]ii. 
4:2; Jas. 2:24=Rom, 3:28) are not based upon any particular writ- 
ing or Paul out ratnsr on certain pnras&o.iogy i justix icat ion oy 
faith alone) which has either been used by libertines to deny the 
of certain acts of obedience or at least, in the mind 

nfc3cess 1 ■ 

James, has the potential to condone this sort of behav 

i f 

justification by faith is not balanced with a teaching of justi- 
fication by works. In Rom. 3:8 and 6:1-2,15 Psiul also vArarns 
against this twisting of his teaching to give license to 
libertinism. Therefore James and Paul should be pictured as 
standing baick to back on the same stage addressing different 
audiences. Since Paul's epistle is directed at the Romans, it is 
possible that a discussion about justification, by faith apart 
from the works of the lavv^ Vs^as raging in the city of Rome. 

■8cf. Schrenk, s.v. 6 iKa laavun , TBNT , II: 201, 

However, this conflict was pi'obably broader than just the 
geographical area of Rojne since it was a problein that all Jewish 

p J-i r-- ^ p i- -j j-^ XI p f 3 ,- o r! , 

-i , _, r'ai ci,.L a. S ^ Si £;■ S i., w c- S i i jctiiiteo ciiU CsS-u.j- a i-jciLttJ. Cp .a, o i. j. tSb 

^' a.! at: b- t c.l a ^ 

x_eAe uj L Kai oAoKAnpoL Tfavza ai-'6piunov'^ 

e y p. }"! 6 e V L Ae ITT oil e V o I . ev 3C p l ctt w , 

(context about endurance) (context about teaching wisdom) 

l:4ta,6b cya J]te ,teAe_ijOL ... Eph . 4 :13b, 14a eiQ avSpa (C£Aej.oi'' 

... '^va |ji/Kex(. Cjp.ei' vriT,LOL, 
ioLKeiJ KAyd^ui/j. eaAacTCTHQ iiLMLi?iiJL..i?^^/-*'^*''^ ^ ^^^^ Jiep Lt|;£p6|iei.'o i 

aye<i L^oiieyCjj KCfl p irr i^onevu . Tiai'x.1 df€|j.w xnc cS idaCTKaAlac, 

i t. ne resu.lts ot s2n.Qur3.nc1S; \tns resu-its or ci ixxso. j. s5.Q6rrs.: 

1:12 iiaKap lOQ 2 Tim. 2 :11a, 12 tj-lcttoc c Aoyoc; 

Q'ynp oc; U2I£ii§il'^ '- ttc Lpaa'jiov , ... cl MZLxciJiilc;^'^''' ' 

OT L SoKiixci'Z, yei-'op.evoc, Anpttexac Ka t. CTU|jPQ'crtAeucjOfXei' ' 

(endure in trials) (endure in the Christian faith) 

"^^i-" 'Zl^JlSlE.2.^ -^Q 'Ci^iriQ 4:8 c cnc, 6 LKaioauviiq, CTI.§,ilid,-i2Q 

bi/ eTTnyyeLAato tolc; crYcxTTwaLy .. . tolq nyoTT/ii-coac 

auxoi^. zfjij en Kpavc iciu ai)tou, 

(crown of life) (crown of righteousness) 

1:13a. pouAnt/etQ aTreKvricrev -qpcic, 2 Tim. 2:15c opBozapavyxa 

ASyy iZA,.il££i:.idS '^^'■^ hid'i.'^^ ^ 'hi S:L^ii£!LktiS, • 

(in the work of regeneration) (in preaching) 

Jas. 1:21a Col. 3:8 yuyi Se Eph, 4:25 

£S9. 9:E9A~}i£:.E.£.l .9Z[.2£§'^S'^ ^ai upeic xd i.±£. il?I£££iiJLti£,k 

ZlScrai/ puTTGpLai.' ko; l jravza, bpyhv , Qupov , Kaizlav , x6 qjeudcc, 

TTcp Loae Lo:ij KOKlgQ ,e.Aaa(|!ri|,i lai-c, aiaxpoAoy LC(i' (put away 

(put away two evils) (put away 5 different evils) falsehood) 

1:22 7TOi.nxai Aoyou . . . p-q povov Col. 2:4 lua priSetc, upMC, 

(delude self with only hearincj) (delude Vv'ith beguiling speech) 

1:27c Cicrnj./sjDi£_ eavxou icripely 1 Tim, 6:14a T.rj£ijiijaL ae 

cxjTO zov Koapou . Xii'/ Ci'XoAnv g£jr^iA£ii_ 

(keep oneself unstained) (keep commandment unstained) 

2:14 nicrzLh' ... eeya 5e pyq exd '■ Eph. 2; 8-9 zq yap xa'ps-Xi eate 
pi) Suvaxai n Tipox.p.c CTtJga t auxoi-'; aeaugpevo i did .7T.toixec'c ... 

9 OUK eH e£Y(jy 

3 I 1 p.ri TroAAol §,±oSig;KaljD_L yiyexjOe, 1 Tim. 1:7 yo^ocSj._c5da;KxiAOj. , 
... 6x1. pel Coy Kpi}j.a A'np/4jdp.e9a . ji, n voovvzec a XtyouaiP 
(context over sins of the tongue) (context about heresy) 

4:7b Civxicyx n X e 6 e 

xy ©..tcr/SoAcj 

(resist "the devil) 

5:3c £9r}oaup iaaxe 

(against the rich) 

Eph . 6; I lb crxquaL iTpOQ zaq 
rie9o6eLac ~ou ,£oAou • 
(take the aririor of God) 

2 Tim. 3:2 (piAapyupo i 


3, 0^3.. J. I 

V a r 1 o u. s e v 1 1 p e o p j. e ; 

5:8 iJCXKpc9up.p,aax£ xal viieic,. . . oxl Phil. 4:5 to en ls ikcc, vfioju 
n napoocjia xov kv£i_ov il"£y^*^-'^-^ - yuiuoOriXij .... o kvjjudc, £-Yjy( 

(advocating patience) (advocating forbearance) 


Tne Oategories 


2 ) Allusion:3 : Jas . 2 ; 14=Eph . 2:8-9 
3) Parallels of both content and 

^^i - O ; .i- . 4> -i- vS. ■*" O C J. , U , O t .D U I i . '^k ~ /^ :^i . 

terminology: Jas 

lili . X : I 

4) Only similar content: Jas. l:4b=Col, 1:28b; 3:1=1 

4;7b = Eph, 6; lib; 5;8=^Phll. 4:5, 

5) Only similar terminology: Jas. l:4b=Eph. 4:13b; 1 : Sb^Ei; 

^i ; J, 4 a ; J- : ,i z — .i a .ilii . ^ , x <^ , x , x oa— t'. x xm . iS . x »,i •--■ , .l , .i j, c;-~xi,p.ii , 4 , i 
J- ; li ,.-i ■-• O O J. . £, : 1: ; i ; ji i l ■— j. x a, in , u : j. 4 ej, , o . o C — /, i j. lit . o , x i, , 

6) Common references to other metterial: 

a) Possible extra-canoniccil saying of Jesus : Jas. 1:12 = 2 Tim. 

.4, - a 

. 5 : 

b) Possible primitive catechism; 

"putting off vices" Jas, l:21=Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9 

4 . 3 Conclusions 

Discussing the relationship of justification to faith and 
works, JaBies alludes to Paul's teaching as exemplified in Eph. 2: 
8-3 . This does not mean that James had read the book of 
Ephesians: instead he is merely alluding to Pauline terminology 
very similar to that found in Eph, 2:8-9. Other connections v«ith 
Paul's later letters are in the form of common teaching patterns. 



Parallels Between James and Hebrews 



1:4 f} de vnop.oi>r) epyou 2:10c d Lct nadrjiiazui' 

xeAe i-oi^- exexw, tva nxe- xsAelol xeAe t SaaL . 

(believer made perfect) {Jesus made perfect) 

1:12 OQ u^TTO^eyei. neipaaiioi' ... 10:36 vnojjoi'ric, yap exete xp^^ou 

AniKpexai ... bu eTPiyye lAaxo tya ... KOjiLCTnaSe "07^ £7TayyeA(av . 
(promise to those who love God) (promise to those ^who have faith) 

1:21a 6 Lo anoBeiJei'OL nacrau 12:1b oyKOi^ anoOeiJeuo l jrauxa 

pvnapiap kql rrep tacre tav KOKcag kg I xhv euTrep Lcrxaxov ap.apxLav 

(put away all filth and evil) (put away every hindrance and sin] 

1:25 eLQ ijoiio u xeAe_Loy 
(praising the law) 

2:21-22 ' Appadjj . 
' laaaK . . . ^ 2 

pAeTTe LQ on 

7T tox LQ CTuyr/pyet xolq eypoLc; 
(evidence of works) 

2:25 '- Paag ^ nopun 
OVK k£, epyuu edi.Kai.69t] 
vno6eB,aiievi~i xouc; ayyeAoug 
kqL exepg 6c5<j eK|3aAouaa; 
(by works) 

7:19 ouc5ei^ yap exeAe lojaeu o u6]j.o c, 
(condemning the law) 

11:17 TTcax e c jrpoo-£j/ni^oxcJ^ ' AppQOf|j 
xov ' roooK 

(sacrifice is evidence of faith) 

11:31 TTLCTxei. ' Pcrd g J2 rropuq . . . 

SeB,aii£vri xovc, KaxaaKonovc, 
p.ex' etpn^HQ- 
(by faith) 

2:26b n rrtaxiQ x^pf^Q 6:1c jiexavoiac; ano 9:14c Kadap leZ . . . ano 

s pyuu ueKp a eax i v . iigi<£" ^ epyhiv ixeKptJ i^ epytJi^ e l q to 

Kol TTigx eojQ errl Beov Aaxpcveiu 9eu C^yxL. 
(condemns dead faith) (condemns dead works) 

3:13 KoKqq, d yagxp o(finQ 
(about wisdom) 

ey £ Ipfiv ri cnreipexai 
xoL£ TTOcouacy elpnyny. 

(about peace) 

4:12b 6 duydpeyo Q otjoa c 
KOL drroAeaaL- 
(save and destroy) 

13:18 KoAwQ ... a uaaxp etpecrOa i 
(about a clear conscience) 

12:11b uaxepoy <5e: KapTid y 

e cprjy iKoy 

xo LQ c5l' avxqc, yeyviiuaaiieuo Lc, 

anoSLduaiu 6 iKaioavi'rjc, . 

(about discipline) 

5:7b xdy 6vuaiieuou cruise lu 

avxou £K dai^axou 

(save Jesus from death) 


The Categories 

./) Quotations and allusions: none, 


2) Parallels of both content and terminology; Jas . l:12-Heb. 
10:36; 3:18=12:llb. 

3) Only similar terminology: Jas. l:4=Heb. 2:10c; l:21a=12:Ib; 
1:25=7:19; 2:26b=6:lC; 9:14c; 3:13=13:18; 4:12b=5:7b. 

4) Common references to other material: 

a) OT: Jas. 2 : 21-22==Heb. 11:17 (Gen. 22:9); 2:25 = 11:31 (Josh. 

b) Well-known wisdom sayings: Jas. l:12=Heb. 10:36; 3:18= 

5.3 Conclusions 

The chief connections between James and Hebrews lie in 
their common references to the OT examples of Abraham and 
Rahab.lS Since the citing of OT models for faith and conduct 
would be understandable against a common upbringing and education 
in Judaism, it is doubtful that James was alluding to Hebrews 11 
in his discussion of faith and works. It is more likely that 
these examples were "in the air" in the Jewish-Christian com- 
munity as substantiated by the fact that 1 Clement also refers to 
Abraham and Rahab.^O 

Jas. 3:18 also manifests close ties with Heb. 12:11. 
Although there are sufficient vocabulary parallels to classify 
this verse as an allusion to James, the different contexts (the 
/ theme of wisdom in James and spiritual discipline in Hebrews) 
argue against such a conclusion. Furthermore, in Hebrews dis- 
cipline yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness whereas in 
James peace results in a harvest of righteousness. Since this 

•^^Pf leidener , Urchristentum , II: 541 concludes from this 
fact that James also used Hebrews. Cf. Mayor, James , ciii. 

^'-'However, it is possible that the geographical center of 
Rome is the connecting link since Hebrews was either written from 
Italy or to the Roman churches (13:24). 

the nreceding and following contexts by catchwords, the source is 
in all likelihood a v^ell-known piece of vjisdom quoted in prover-- 
bial form by James but expanded into a homiletical exhortation in 

jrews , 

6.1 Parallels Between James and Revelation 

J a B e s R- e v e 1 a t i o n 

1:12 iiOKapioc, avrip oq 2; 10b Li/a 

6:TOi.i£^^ei nei£aGjJi6!J , 24.i£i320nx:e Kal e^eze OAnfai' .... 

QZi coKijaOQ y£j/Cjjeyo<; ^ ^^ yt^au Trtaroc; axp t aavazov , Kai 

?\rip.'>jezaL yc*/ gyi5>aycii lIlSs. SJdIl£i diuau ao l xoy oxejia^vcru xnc, Cj£ilS • 

(aeneral trialsf ^ ^" {the trial of prison) 

1;18 CineKunuev ... 14:4c nycpoaef/crai.' ,^, 

driapxriv to;/ outou Kziap.azuu. aZLeeXii. ^^V ^ey Kcri xo apyly 

'ciiscioles are the first fruits )( celebate are the first fruits) 

A O C O; ., U 

^,U\.' u u,' 

'"" '-'' "» ™.j:n-':_^:> "'' "■' ^'^ '" 

2 : 9a oLc5d ctcu _ 

4_ O o u/ 

(unspecified riches) 
3:20a ido:) eazriKa 

( eschatological door) (realized eschatoiogaxaj. aoor 

if fellowship) 

The C a t e go r i e s 
or allusions: none. 

2) Parallels of content and terminology; Jas , l:12=^Rev, 2:101 

3) Only similar terminology: Jas. l:lS=Rev. 14:4c; 5:9b-3:20a. 

4) Common references to other material: 

a) Possible extra-canonical saying of Jesus; Jas, l;12=Rev. 

b) Common church instruction based on the important themes of 
Jesus' preaching: Jas, 2:5=Rev. 2:9a (also 1 Cor. 1:27) 
based on Mt . 5 : 3 ; 1 1 : 2 5 p^tr . 

6.3 The only connections between these two documents are 1) 

ing in times of trial and the exaltation of the 

similar vocabulary employed in eschatological settings, 

7.1 Parallels Betv^een James and 1 Clement 

James 1 Clement 

1:8 aurip oi^ljfoc, 11:2 o I. ±iMiVXO L 2 3 ; 3 o I ^ ±LiiRX£. *•' ' 

1:6 o c5 LQKp lyOfieyoc ical oi 6 lazci^ouxec, oL S laxai^ovzec, 

(about prayer) (about judgment with (scriptural quote 

y .-, ,t.. j . — , f . 4 -£r --, .— , .-^ --, ^ * .— ,j^ ..-, 1 ^.s . — 1 '['••. .--^ -1 -I 4- 4- v-i .-'•- -^ 1 t "f" -? '1 •i'-i r~^ -, 

. , ; ; A W l.-i. i ' :-—' r—i -- f~' j< -H ^ : i ! 1 !-'■* s r-^ , I I \ '. i ■■ ; i 1 !~~' I { ( 1 ! J J t"" i 

XJ K^ V. -^J" /^ ^ -O- ^- '^4 'w.^ %_- ,1;-:. v-4.i.:i. jHr-- »i, '.^- ; S.-S- i^-* N.' v.-i k, ^„ .!. J. V-- .t, i^^ I.. =,A .i- v^ ^' 

1:12 ^aKCfp IOC, Gi-'op 35:4b ^ 5j^5 

eg UTTCjiei-'e L reipacjiaoi'U toji-' uZ[0|ie£OJ^'cwi-- , iillSiiO ^' n Q 

s 5 e A i'/.U !^'/0 O Q" L . . ^ GJTCyC^ p, C XCfA^-^p Wp. t. l-' 

CO/ O/TpYy t' i-AoTC xu,iy tLlLiliiilii'^f^'^'''^-''' J^o:' -lOji.' , ppajBecci/ £dei£;ci.'' 

(a promise to those (a promise to those who (Paul's example) 
who love God) patiently await) 

2-21 ' ^i|£idi3M o 2IQj:jj;p '[LUSiliL. 31:2-3 o ircrcilp iltiiiil , ' 4l2:,£i2idS. ; 

oOk ce, epyuji/ ecS ikq' tuit?/] ol>x!- '5 i-KC( locuy pj-' KQ'i aAnSci-Cfy 

Q L v^ jr I, 'C T O O p ?T O L p CO p ; 

oci-' i; Loy crutoL) "* " i^H^-' • • TTpoanyexo 
oy ; .0 vJ. , (Abraham^ s 

„ ^ ^ . t '"" 1^ ^ s „o o s ano: t a: x -v, Vi ) 

u u 

t-- y' 






ri 1 i C-l 


f .-.; 

x r.) 

pAoyLcSp auxp £ ip opPij3i:.ocniipiiii ^Aop^LcrSpj S,u,]iy. ,ei:ii .£..!:ilSJ:.2iZy,iliii: ■ 

- ^ - O- ^ ' -t ■•'\ r : f '^i i ^- ^- / 1 r~! -- 1 ""^ ^ A ■' ^ ■"- f 

is.o t p ^-AO^p ij€-CO -- 'w : 1 u 5iPpA^r„^, x i : ^ :irh;.Ph™-s 

£kA60P, (Abraham, 7TpuCTayopeu9e ip 7Tpo;7pyopeu0p 

exaiiiple of faith and works) (Abraham, example of obedience 

2:24 bpaxo oxi e:.c, .ogjpuj-' 30:3c e£yoip 

ojncp L o_p zo: :.. q v o p w 7T o p £Ap1311j2,Mh £^'-'0l 

Kal ovK. EK. TTLCTxeop iiovoi'. Ko L pp AoyoLp. 

justified by works and no- 

(justified by works and not 

faith alone) words) 

2:25 'Pag§ q TjOQuri 12:1 6 lo TricjziiJ Kal tpiXo^ev lau 

oOic tE, epyijy id LKC(i66rj eaudu 'pPacfil Li £?" LAoy'opey ?/ E3.BJiIi 

(Rahab's works) (Rahab's faith and hospitality) 

OnGdeE,aii€un xoup ayyeAoup 12:4c o t, ai'Speq ... annAdou 

Kal ezepci o6w^ eKfBaAoucra; Kal rropeuo^xaL x;; odu' 

V Tj 06 e LKvvov (7a a v zo ic ev ahXa ^ , 
(spies sent out another way) (representatives of the king 

oointed in another direction) 

3:13 T L Q £ii;!j£5S Kcx L t-TT LCTnp-u/y 3S:2c c crcii:J2.£i 

,C- 1 : 

V p- L y ^ c5 fc. L tt C( X iO t^ ?-^ o o C ,K. U V CT u w "C ; / U ^p^^-* J^^---^ ^' ^' *■ ' "^ ^ '---' 

£K tnc, KaAnc, cxvacr-zpO'tiViC x.a jjn sv AcyocQ 

e£ya auxou ey irpauTiiri croj|5_c_g(; . aAA ' ey |:j;j;£occ; ayaSoiQ" 

( v>?isdci;\ vs. jealcusy 3:14} (ivorcis vs. good deeds) 

T g lyj g g 2 C 1 S iT! © Ti t. 

4:6 y.£ L^oya de o iduCTLj-.' }(Qpi.y: 30:3 KoAA?]9iJii£y . . ,olq n Xi3,fel.k'^ • • • 

did Aeye I ' 6 ££09 dedoxai- 30:2 ££6c yap, ^iio'iiJ, 

!-i.E^ 911$.'^^ Q-^Sr .i?Aiidiid'Z2j£A.£i.k ' 2R£SjJJiA^^~LkSx 9±LSJ:S.919Il,§S.'^\k' 

{emphasis on grace) (emphasis on pride) 

4 : J. 4- O n O L Ci J'] ^2 (u fj V II iiJ V ' i- i : O C '"■ o "C <- C, £ L LI L <Z y uJ f O X L p-S 

neinreic,; ... Kai zaKiu Keyei' 

gjyiyc, ydp eaxe tyili 6e e lu t apjJ_uy 

n 7TpOC, 0/\Lyoy Q/CXliyOlXSVl'j , Ol^O KUi^pCJC, 

ejre Lta kq i a(|)ai' iCopet^)] . 

i QX^ IQ ciS iill St ; i, C'XU L Q as SiuOiC© j 

4- 16a KcnjjiCfcree ev xaic, 21; 5b eyKaiiX^JW^-'O -Q £A 

aAa£_oi-'_£j,a Lc, lyiwy ■ ,cf.^QlypAJAA9' 'CCU Aoyou Cfuxuiy 

;concernina those who neglect (concernina foolish and sense- 

i--:^T ^? '^ .?^ '!*-]-..-? T ■-.-'--" T^? *' "^ *' O '^ ^ 


Seiyp.ct . . . Xi/Q 5:7c uttc|Jui-';]Q y€i,'Ojjeyoc, |ueyio"xoc, 

p.G'KpOt-'Up. tG'C, XOUC yip^ 0(|) JVC Q'Cg V7T Oy pCXjlllCQ . U : 4 li£XpOy O : '.VO'l-'AOQ 

(the prophets as exaiiipies of (Paui and Petfer as ejjaiiiples of 

5:20 o err Lcrxpei|iac; a^apxcijAcy ev jrAavnc, ' _ 49:5 ayGTiri 
(bringing back a sinner covers sin) i ve covers sin) 

7.2 The Categories 

1) Quotations or allusions; none. 

9 \ P a ■>"' a 1 T p 1 «"; n 1" ^T '"■ t b '"■ o n t r=' '■"■ i" a ^' d "^ ^"^ '"' "n *' i"' o 1 o o 


0- ; X f^ — .1 

35 ; 4b ; 2 : 24 = 30 

Q . 

3) Only similar ccntent : J? 

-^ _ -f r^ .„ -^ f^ '1 p. , P; , f^- ■ "! A -- 5 

4) Only similar terminology: Jas . 1:8=1 CI, 11:2; 23:3; 4:1=46:5; 
4 ; 14b=17 ; 5c-6 ; 4:16a=21;5b. 

5) Common references to other material; 

a ,' U 4. ; J ct:3 . i : /i vi o -- J. u -i • J. a ; OU l, ijO.;;. . j. .j . D ; , ii. , £ u D-- ,1- u , J. , J- i . ,i 
( J. J. j<,.S .i u.-iir . i '.J ; i ; j. & , % X : o ; ; <.'. ; i, o u— x <i ; ^* O > xr ciul i_ -LOii i r Oiu 

-f ^ ^ V -'^ 'V A r- -^ r^ o <" TD -^-j ,~ -v? o o ,-1 ^ P 1 r\'— A d - r, / f~^ vi i-. v r i (■^ , -1 f^ ^ 

X'i X CiL 

_^ ^. ^v I' --. '-, O ^ i -^ -1 '^1 -"^ "• ■^ o / "O ^-^ i-v--. -I ^ r^"-^ "S: ,-, -t-, '"^ 1 /", -.--■^ 1-^ '-. -4- 

OrS : .jat^. 2.-;y.l. — l ul. o j. ; ^, - o ( KOHt . ^ ; -c; Ox: lOT uiehient, 

Heb. 11 in addition); 2:24^30;3c (James is like Rom. 3:28; 
22-23 and Mt . 7;21); 2;25a=12;l (traditions like Heb . 11). 
c) Common wisdom saying; Jas . 1:12=1 CI, 35:4b. 

The quality rather than the quantity of the parallels 
between James and 1 Clement is impressive. Most prominent is the 
shared emphasis on faith and action working together. Like Paul 
Clement of Rome explains that we "are not iustified throuah our- 

' s 3 or 

v'-i U i is- S "A' X .1 J. o 

f ^ ^, A 

we wrouga" 


p .i a y t: c.i- lii y u u u lA" o J 

and not by words 

\ J dfci 

understanding or piety or 

c A 1 a t- w- n r x s c r;. a n s a r a 
\ 3 ; 3 j , t i i a t w 1 s cS o ni is a 1 s ■" 

iO woric or rianteousness 

d : O ; . 

In Quotina the Q- 

eraent again emphasizes both 

,!- r... 


James). In 1 CI. 9:3-10:2 he speaks about the faithful obedience 
of Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, while in 10:7, 11:1, and 12:1 he 

points out that Abraham, Lot, and Rahab were saved through both 
faith and hospitality. Thus some have concluded that Clement is 
consciously attempting to reconcile the teaching of Paul and 
James. ■^''* The exegetical evidence, however, is against such a con- 
clusion. Clement is not specifically contrasting faith and works 
but works and words, a familiar contrast in Paul (Rom. 2:13), 
James (1:22-23) and Jesus (Mt. 7:21). Instead of quoting Janies , 

^ftn-f T'-o.-.r,! 1 -■ 

nowling, James, xlix; Mayor, James, li 

1 i i - 1 -^ i -i 

i p, f- .--( 7-^ ^--i ■\- H g "* f-n ■;") ,Q r^ — 

tant word "justified" receives its content from Job ("Does th 

oraagart tninK: 

■h In p -h "h ^7. 

.y, Clement's stress upon hosp 
James' mention of R£ihab ' s "receiving the messengers" but is an 
essential part of Clement's polemic against the Corinthian 
Christians ( 1 .- 2 ) . If Clemenat were attempting to argue that the 
teaching of Paul and James should be synthesized, he certainly 
would have openly mentioned their names or at least elaborated 
the problem. 

The chief connections between James and 1 Clement are 
thsir coiriuion rsforsncss to sourc-s rflatsrial. Tl'is identical two OT 

-^ ^ .^ ^ ^ ,-v- .-, ^ / r^ ".^ --~. ^ y o . O /? . "5 A - ~^ ■'^ ''^ -^ !■■•< ■"- /-^-^' j- +■ (~i r^ *-,t " T o '*-^ <r- -'■-• "1 r~, ='-1 '""' "^ o '■'^' -^ ---' ■^' "^ ."■ 

y cs.t> i:t B.Q & !s \ r X OV . O . O t , ,t I.' . .i i . el .L r- qi.j.ul.fcLi uy J dajlfc r- cLIiU. '_-- .i fc;;.ird j.i ... clfc> 

well as Peter. Yet since olII thrs;e write^rs einphasize a different 
D r i d e l n. o a 1 1 u s i o n t c 

' i k cr <r.l 

■" - 1' a, W-jK 

o J '^'^ r w r* ^ a X' s a J C' ■ n ^"^ y a c^ 1. o ni .3 o o r n 'J a rn a 3 a n o, v„.-' „. a iti a i) l . a - c a r 

1 1 ' and ininiedi atelv rscits 
the example of Rahab . Referring to the story of Rahab in 1 CI, 
12 Ycuno notes, "This narticular ennohasis ( thei sendina of the 
antagonists in opposite directions) although absent from Jewish 
literature and early Christian literature until Augustine, is 

found in one passage , "'^^-' i.e. Jas , 2; 25b. 
JaJiies is indebted to 1 CleKient sines Cleiuent 

Yuung contends thai, 
o f t a n offers u n i C'" u e 

'^"'Franklin W. Young, "The Relation of 1 Clamar 
Epistle of James , " JBL 67(194 8 ) : 342. 

_-^ .^-^ ^ 4- 

I- ,-, f- ]-, o. 

X e r a ' 

No dependence, however, can be 
proven since in 1 Clement the representatives of the king of 

are sent out another way. 26 -pj-ig more probable solution is that 
each author is reproducing a Jewish tradition that the spies and 
the messengers of the king went in opposite direct ions , "^^ ^ 
flowever, it is possible that within the specific geographical 
locale of Rome the church emphasized not only the fact that Rahab 
hid the spies underneath the flax (the usual emphasis), but also 
that the soles and thB iBSSsengers of the king of Jericho vJsra 

,_,^ ^ ^ v^ P^ 

fa 1 4- 

' i^ " 

ue citv 


I ,-". 

o •• 1 ■ 

x^ 1^ 

-■ '- X * 

if r 

(95 CE ) , however, 

icJ.t ci pOj.enij.(_- aUcn <ia V. licit. ,.1. O Uilt- 

2:18 was no longer necessary 

sncountar in 1 

^'Syoung hesitantly affirms that the king's messengers are 
in mind even though he recognises that ij7Jo6e^ap.ei^a in both Clas- 
sical and Hellenistic Greek meant "receive as a guest'h Mayor, 
James, 102 and Laws, J^ISies, 139 believe that "another way" indi- 
cates the use of the window instead of the door (Josh. 
2; 11, 15, 16), yet the term OcSoq would more naturally refer to a 
road, highway, or direction of a return journey than to the 
window through which the spies exited. 

2'^The following dissimilarities exclude any dependence of 
one author upon the other.- 1) the term ej/aAAdg is unique to 1 
Clement; 2) 1 Clement and Hebrews label the men KaxaoKo-iTC l 
(spies) while James calls them dyyeAc i. (jnessengers) ; 3) 1 Clement 
is unique in its hidden reference to Christ's blood in the scar- 
let thread. 

-45 7- 

C iemen r 

i n t e Q" T 3. 1 p a i" t s 

synthesis where both faith and obedient works 


This geographical thesis, 

not the only solution since the chief conns 

between James, Peter, and Clement could be the common teaching 
patterns in the broader Jewish-Christian community. 
8.1 Parallels Between James and the Shepherd of Hermas 

JcUTies HerKias 

l;3--4 to daKijiiov \)iH:)iy tr/c; Mand . 5,2,3 avzf, n iJ.aKpa9viiLa 

7T_Lax:eoJC, icazepya'Ceza l v7roixoi'ni' • kcctoikoi p.€xa xiou zr,v ilXsJz.'-^ 

i) 6e vnap.cvri epyo^^ xeACLCi' exexu, 

. u i.-i ,' / ',. 

t e A e L o L Ko: l o a o k A n p o c 


(endurance produces completeness) (patience dwells with those 

I 1 i.~-> +■ r 

■I- h ' 

ei cSe 



K, O, Q 

u , % , o 

AC i.TT€ lO I 

rj,'-.A-, ^ 

zi J, in , II 

Fl^B-?-. ILOu 6 idai'ZOQ Qeov ESPA ILSil KUpiou £«£ ' ctuxou avveciLi/ 

. . , Kai do9r}aezai avzui. hriipovza l , kg L Aapjsdyei 

(answered prayer if you (answered prayer (receive interpretation 

have faith" 

I J. you 


.„, -f +. 5, 

le parable ) 


T c . " c d . y x G ( 

■' o O u O ,i. \/ C w- 

ri P-; T^ o -, 1 c; 1 V T ^ 

Mand , 2 ; 4 TracTii 

olt5ou CfirAuJC, uo LUAti. ;; wWC, o i..C'tuU >.. 

(human giving) (God gives unceasingly 


ci'5 icxKs. mr (J Q 

1:5 Ci L r e i r ijj 

7Ta,{3Q ,3L2,ii didcyxoQ 0eou . . . 

iSi-l-iz ooG fj CTCz Q L ex U X iu . 

1:6 cxL-xelxyj Si cy tt taxe i 

p. ?7o£p' i5 LCTKp 'L y OpCi-'GC, . . . 

1:7 pi'i yap oleaSw o ay^ptiTToc; 

eKeil-'OQ OX L AJjjtlii;''^'^" '•■ "c i. 

7ra£a x_g u KU|j_la u , 

1 : 8 CX-unp d_L(|;UJ)40Q 

1:4 tua rize X§2i.§L,!:°'- ^'-o: L oKoK/xqpoi 

1:6 alxeixu cSe ev niazei ev x 

Mand. 9:4 Kai aizav 
TTCfga XjCU KvpLov, 
K a I ex TT o A n tf ' 17 tt a y x q' 

£ i-' X(/ KQpS LCi ecu, 

o u d e y o u ij.ri Aj2i£ 1 1 
X uj y a L X rpfi axiop aa v . 

. . . OVtOl € iCO'f' OC OHl'ZSXOi 
o - 

de oAoxoAetc oi-'xec 

LiTxe I ... ad LCJxaKXtjc 

pr/dey 3 iQ'Kp Lj-'Ope.vQc; 
(without doubting) 

lu LZOU p' CO! I , p ?; d tt-' d L 4* i-' XCJ ' 

(without wavering) 

p p d £ L Q 

LpOc, op 

opei^op 7\eye:xw Si:Sd cccfu coy o'lxtij 

5X1 drro 9eou rreipaCopai" 
not blame God for temptation) 

KC( L 'fit) xou 6i6ouxct o"o l , 

(blame yourself for unanswered 



1 : 8 dKazaaxaxoQ 

~- ____^ -. , ^ , ^ 

^ rraaaiQ xacQ odoLQ cx'oxoxj . 
{about a double-minded man) 

1:12 i[iS;sai3_U3C, a;^r;p 

o^ UT TOpCi^e L 

(endure trials in general) 

1:14-15 eKaatoQ t5e TieLpdceT:aL 
U7TO xnQ itStac; ett iQu;^ cac; 
e^eAKopei-'oc; Kal rfeAeaCopei/OQ • 
etxa x] en L 9vii La avAAa(3ovoa 
xiKteL ap. apx la v , 
n de ofjuapx La arToxeAeaOe caa 
ctrroKue c 0at^axov . 
(not blame God for temptation) 

Mand . 5,2,7 dKa xaaxax e Z 

kn mkin Tipa^ei auxou 

(about a person's angry temper) 

2.2,7 piaKOp LP L ufjetQ 


OXZiliiu X))i^ epxojjeyr/i^ xr)u peyaAr/v 

(endure the great tribulation) 


Mand. 4,1,2 eau yap avxri q euQviJi-i- 
aiQ enl xt)u Kopdiau aou di^Ql3>7, 
6 Lapapx^ae lq , 

Kal eav exepa ouxuq Trouqpa, 
ap.apx Lav epyaC{7 • • • ecri^ cSe xlq 
epyoranxai xo epyoi^ novripov xovxo , 
9av axov kaux^ KaxepyaZf^'^ai . 
(about ■ extra-marital affairs) 

Jas. 1 : 14-15 

exaCTTOQ de TretpaCexat 

UTTo xr\c, idlac, en igup la c, . . 

etxa n errcQupla auAAa/3ouaa 

XLKxeL gpapx ta i^ , 

h de dpapxta aTroxeAeaQe taa 

ciTTOKue c 0a)>axoi^ . 


(emphasis on 

the cause 

Vis. 1,1,8 r) ou doKe L oo l di'dpc 
SiKaiu) noi^iipou rrpaypa eli^at 
eau auaPii avxov enl zqu Kapstav 
ij n out} pa e n i0up l a ; 

apa px la ye eaxiu, kol peyaAu . . . 
OL de nopT^pa |3ouAeu6pevo t eu xaic, 
KapS iaic, avxuiy Qavaxoiv 
(emphasis on righteousness) 

Mand . 11 : 5-6 nau_ 
yap TT^eupa otto Oeov 
. . . ai^u0e:i> eax lu 

1:17 naaa Soaic, ayaOt) 

Kal nau dcjpnpa xeAe loi^ 

auuOeu eax lu Kaxa^aZuou 

Atto xav TTaxpoQ xui^ cpuxuu ano xnq, duixftpeuc;. 

3:15 avxri // aocpla ... ^ x6 de TTveupa .. 

£ 77 tye LO Q , ^uxuKi], 

datpoi^ LUdnQ • 

(gift from above) 

1 : 20 dpyn ydp ori^dpoc; 
d LKa loauyn ^' Qeou 
OUK epyaCexai . 

1:21b xdjy eyKpvxou Koyov x6i> 
dui^dpei^ ot/' aucraL xdc, t|<ux ctc; upui^ 
(implanted word able to save) 

1:22a, 25 yii^eaQe de noii}xal 
A6you Kal pn poi^ov dxpoaxal . . 
ouxoc; paKopLO Q 
ey Xf) TTOCfiaec avxov eoxaL 

e n lye lo v eox l kol 
eAacJjpoi^ , 
duuapLv pn exov • 
(Spirit from above) 

Mand . 9:11 
ox L )) n lax tc, eax i 
napct xov Kvplov. . . 
n de dul^ux^a 
£7r eye lov nvev\xa eax l 
rrapd xou 6 ta^oKov , 
duvapLi^ pn exovoa . 
(faith from above) 

Mand. 5,2,1 xqu eucQy^e iai> xriq, 
o^uxoALaQ ... anonhavq auxouc, 
drrd xfJQ d LKaiocjvuq c, . 
(evil temper) 

Sim. 6,1,1 TTepil xuj^ e^xoAui^ .. 
6vua \xeuaL acjaai ijjuxo^ dj^OpuTrou 
(commandments able to save) 

Sim. 5,3,9 oao i av cxKovaavxec, 
auxct xqpqai^OL , 
\iaKap 10 L 

(context about hearing and doing) ( context about fasting) 


Jas. 1:27 epncTKeLa 

KaQgpa icg l ap l ai^xoc , 

• • • .gTT laKenxeoOaL 

gpipayovc, KOj. x^ipac, 

iu xri d?\itli&<- avzuju 

(pure religion; content of pure 


Mand. 2:7 n KapSia aov 

KaOapa koI a ^ iai^zoc, . 

Sim. 1:8 xnpctc, Ka I op ipai^ov Q 

en LaKenxeoB e 

KOL jir/ n-apafSAeJTexe aOrouQ 

(pure heart; content of the 

works of God) 

2:5 a Kov aaze , adehipoi ... ovx 
o Oeoc, e^eAe^axo xovc, n xux ovQ 
xO Kocriiij n koucTio vc, eu rrcaxet 
(poor but rich) 

2:5 xouq, nxuxovc, xu Koapu 

TTAougt ouQ ep' TTtateL 
(rich in faith) 

2:7 OUK auxoL |3Aacri|)riiU OLiaiy 
x6 KaAov ovoiia 
L9. £71 LKAn0£i^ e^ ' ujaaQ ; 
(about the rich) 

'^ fJ^j.' 

Sim. 2:5 crxojje , (|)na"Ly* 
rrAoucrio c; ex£ <- xpn^orxa /roAAd, 
xa de TTpoc, xoi^ Kvpiou rrxtuxgue t- 
(rich but poor) 

Sim. 2:6 n ej^xeug Lc; xou Trenixoc. 
rrpoCTdEKxr; eaxi Kal 
nXo vo L a npoc, xou Qeou . 
(rich in intercession) 

Sim. 8,6,4 pAaa(p rj p. qcjav x e c, ... 
enaLax^ivOevxec^ x_o o\io\i a KupLOu 
1.9. en- LKAnOei/ err' auxouQ. 
(about heretics) 


Xupic; epy uu ueKpa eax lp . 
2:26a i^anep yap x6 awpa 
xwplc; 7ryeu;aaxoc; veKpou kaxiv, 
(about faith without works) 

Sim. 9,21,2 xa pnpaxa avxuu 
poua cdiai, xa de epya auxaij/ 
vexpa eCTX^iii ■ oi xotouxot 
ouxe ^(jcTLi/ ouxe xeSi^nKaaL^. 
(about the double-minded) 

3:2b el' X I Q 

eu Aoyw ou nxaicL . . . 

dui^axoQ xg^ Luayuyria a l kol 

oAoy x6- auiia . 

3:8 xriu de yAuiaaau 

ovSelc, dajiaaoL duuaxat auBpunuji' 

(over the tongue) 

Mand. 12,1,1 
pianaeiQ xi)u nounpau e7T lOvpiau 
Kol xaXiuayuyna e lq 
auxi)i/ KaOuQ pouAe l . 
12,1,2 aypta eaxLv n en idvp La n 
noutipa Kal cSuctkoAwq r/jLiepouxat • 
(over evil desire) 

Jas, 3:8 

xrju 6e yAucraau . . . 

aviaxaaxaxou viaKou , 

K — i — ="« — 

jjeaxr) ^ou 

0ai^axr7{^6pou . 
(tongue is a rest- 
less evil poison) 

Mand. 2:3 Sim. 9,26,7 

nounpa r/ KaxaAaAtd, 7d xd pnfjaxa d Lai|)0e ipe l 

6ai\x6u LOU ecjxiv 

(slander is a rest- 
less demon) 

xot' auOpuinou kol ctTToAAuei. 
7c Sia^Qeipei xw eavxuu lb) 
xou auOpunou Kai anoXAve l 
(words are poison) 

3:15 OUK eaxLu avxt] n aoipLa 

quuiOev Kaxepxoiieur] 

QAAa eniyeto c,, i/zuxtKr), 

daciiou LUJdnQ . 

(true vs. false wisdom) 

Mand. 9:11 oxi n ttlctxlq 

auijOeu eax I napa xou KVplov, ... 

// de~6 l^jvxIcx en ly e io u nuevpa eax l 

napa xou dtalSoAou 

(faith vs. double-mindedness) 


3:17 n <5e 

auujOeu aoiPta 

ayvr) eaz lu , 

'inELxa elprjULKf], err le lkj'iq. 
(seven qualities of wisdom 
from above) 

Mand . 11:8 npuxou iieu 
6 ex^»^ to TTveujja to Oeiov to a uujOei^' 
TTpauQ ear l 

Kal nauxLOc, ko l xaire L^6(J)p(J!> . . . 
(seven qualities of the Spirit from 
above ) 

3:18 Kapno Q 5e 6 ikq loctuj/j/q 
eu eipftur} arteipezai 
(about peace) 

Sim. 9,19,2 
6 iKaLOcruiyiiC, • 
(about hypocrates) 

fi(7 exouzec, Kapno i^ 

Jas. 4:3 


Kal ou Aapjgcfi^exe 

<5t6tL Kaxijc; atrelaSe 

(not receive if ask wrongly) 

Sim. 4:6 rrcjQ ouy, (|>rjcrLv, 6 TOLoutoQ 

dui/axai It atrnCTaaQai. 

TTapcf tou KVpiou Kal Aa|3e'(.i^, 

pn SovKeuuu xu) Kuptoj; 

(not receive if not serve the Lord) 

4 : 5b TTpoQ 4>9oi>oi/ 
en LTToOeZ to nuevija 


-*r — 

(envious spirit) 

Mand . 3:1 
xo Tn^eujjor, 6 6 deoc, 
eu x;] crapKL xauxr/ 
(about truth) 

Sim. 5,6,5 
x6 Tsv eu\ia x6 ayiou . . . 
o QeoQ eiQ aapKa 
(about the holy spirit 

Jas. 4:7 

gux tax r/xe 


XL) Oeu 

XW c5 LapoA uJ KQL 

4>eu^exai a$ ' y;ju)> 

(submit to God and 
resist the devil) 

Mand. 12,2,5 6ai/ douAeuaj/Q 
X[) en LOvjila xij ayaOij 
KQL U7TOxa^^)2c; avxri 
2.4 ori^x laxijCj t avxaic,. 
2,2 f) errtSujJLa r; nour^pa 
'^'^^ ^ t-gjBoAou 0uyaxnp eaxty. 
2.4 ij)£U$£xaL grro aou ^OKpau , 
Kal ouK ex L aoL 6(p9naexai 
(evil desire vs. good 
desire ) 

Mand. 12,5,2 
6 (5 LaSoAoc . . . 
eau ouu 
aux Loxa 9rixe 
auxio , u LKriGelc, 

Kax;jaxu(jjjej/OQ . 
(mastered by 
the devil vs. 
resist devil ) 


4:8b Ka0ap ig gxe x^lpac,, 

quapzuAo t , 

KQL ayv Laaxe KapSlac,, 

(command to the double-minded 
to purify themselves) 

Vis. 3,2,2 nauxec, Se ol p.n 
Si^uxovi^xec, K aBap lc tQ ncrou xa i 
ano nai'xup xQu aiiapxripaxuv 
etc, xauxqu xr^u tjiiepav . 
(promise of purification for 
those not double-minded) 

4 : Bb Ka0ap l aaxe xei-'pcfc;, apap- 
xuAot^, Kal ayylaaxe Kapd la c, , 

(adds "cleanse your hands") 

Mand. 9:7 KaOap la ov ouu 
xr)u KapS l au oou 
ano xi-jC, 6 l jiuxlcrc; 
(adds "put on faith") 

4 : 8 6 Lilivy o l . 

4:9 xaAatTTajp naaxe 

Kal TrevSnaaxe 

(the double-minded must grieve] 

Vis. 3,7,1 ano de x>]c, cS I jjuxlac, 
auxwi^ diplouaii' xt)p odou ... 
TTAayui^xai Kal xaKainu)po'vaLu 
(double-minded lose their way) 


James Hermas 

4:11 jir) KaxaXaAeZxe aAAii\uu ... Mand . 2:2 npujzov jieu unSeuoc. 

6 KaTaAaAcJi7~ac5eA(})ou i) Kpiuui' KaxaAaAe i , iiiiSe ndeuQ aKoue 

tdu a6e\(p6i> ... KaxaAaAe l j^6(jou KoxgAaAoui^toc; ■ 

(context about judging the law) (context about slander) 

4:12 6 


Kac a/roAeaai 

(theme; against judging) 

Mand. 12,6,3 xo:.' Trai^xa SuuaiJ.ei'Oi^ 

atjaai Kal anoXeaa l 

(theme: fear God, not the devil) 

5 ; 1 aye uuu 

o I nXova l o l , 

KAauaaxe oAoAu^oyxec, 

errl xatc, xaAatrrajp (a tc, viiuu 

xaZq, tnepxonei' aL.c, . 

5:4b KOL QL /3oal xuu QepLcauxuu 

elq, xa Sxa Kup Lo u aa^aijQ ela- 

eAnAuQacTti^ . 5:9b lc5ou 6 xp LxnQ 

TTpo zuu Ovp iju eaxriKeu . 

(the rich will suffer ruin) 

5; 11a Idou jJOKop i ^oiiev 
xobc, vnoiie iuauxac, • 

(a general exhortation) 

Vis. 3,9,6 pXenexe ovu uiieic, oi 
yavpaviieuoL ei> xu irAouxu vp.u)i^ . . 

3.9.5 pAerrexe 

X n l> KP [ g L 1^ 

X n y ejTepxo^ev r; i^ . 

3.9.6 Ka L. o crxeuayiioc, auxQu 
auapnaexai npoc, xou Kup lo u , 
Kal eKKKeiaOnaecrBe . . . 

e^uj xfjc, Qvpac, xov nupyou . 
(ungenerous shut outside tower) 

Vis. 2,2,7 faa KQ-p lo i upeiQ 
oao c uTToueyexe 
xqu QXiil^LP xr^u epxonevr]u 
(about the final tribulation) 

5:11c o X t TTQAuarrA ayx^OQ 


_ ^ J _ -J 4__ a 


(about God's good purpose) 

Mand. 4,3,5 TToAuaTrA ayx'-'O'; ouu 

iJ U 6 KUp LQQ 

eanAayxi^ '-crOn tnl x^i^ TroinaLi' 
(an opportunity for repentance 


The Categories 

1) Quotations: none. 

2) Allusions; Jas. l;5-7=Mand. 9,4,4-6; 3;15=Mand. 9:11; probably 
1:17 and 3:15-Mand. 11:5-6; 3;17=Mand. 11:8; 4:8b^Mand. 9:7. 

3) Parallels of content and terminology: Jas. l:3-4=Mand. 5,2,3; 
l:5=Sim. 5,4,3; 5,4,4; 5,3,9; 1:12 and 5:lla=Vis. 2,2,7; 1:14- 
15=Mand. 4,1,2; Vis. 1,1,8; 3:8==Mand. 2:3; 4:7=Mand. 12,2,2-5; 
12,5,2; 4:8b=Vis. 3,2,2; 5 : 1 , 4b , 9b=Vis . 3,9,5-6. 

4) Only similar content: Jas. l:13==Mand. 9:8d; l:22-25=Sim. 
5,3,9; 3:8=Mand, 12,1,2; Sim. 9,26,7; 4:3=Sim. 4:6; 4:lla=Mand. 

5) Only similar terminology: Jas. l:4=Mand. 9:6; l:5=Mand. 2:4; 
l:8=Mand. 5,2,7; l:17=Mand. 9:11; 11:5-6; l:20=Mand. 5,2,1; 
l:21b=Sim. 6,1,1; l:27=Mand. 2:7; Sim. 1:8; 2:5=Sim. 2:5-6; 
2:7=Sim, 8,6,4; 2:26=Sim. 9,21,2; 3:2b=Mand. 12,1,1; 3:18=Sim. 
9,12,2; 4:5b=Mand. 3:1; Sim. 5,6,5; 4:9=Vis. 3,7,1; 4:12==Mand. 
12,6,3; 5:llc=Mand. 4,3,5. 


6) Common references to other material: 

a) Sayings of Jesus: Jas . l:5=Vis. 5,4,3; 5,4,4; Sim, 5,3,9; 
and Jas. 4:3=Sira. 4:6 (Mt. 7:7; Lk . 11:7). 

b) Possible Christian catechism (established teaching pattern) : 
Jas. 4;7=Mand. 12,2,2-5; 12,5,2 like 1 Pet. 5:8-9. 

c) Well-known wisdom saying: Jas. l;12=Vis. 2,2,7. 

8.3 Conclusions 

Whereas the parallels between James and 1 Clement are 
concentrated in the area of allusions to other writings, the 
parallels with the Shepherd of Hermas lie primarily in similar 
terminology. The Shepherd nowhere admits dependence upon James; 
it seems rather that Hermas has internalized the Epistle of James 
so that James' terminology has become his own. 28 only in one 
pericope can we positively affirm an allusion to James -- Mand . 
9. Here Hermas draws together three references from the Epistle 
of James into one of his paragraphs. Similar to James Hermas 
includes Jesus' saying about the certainty of answered prayer 
(Jas. l:5=Mand. 9:5), an exhortation aimed at asking in faith 
without wavering (Jas. l:6=Mand. 9:5), a statement identifying 
those who waver as the double-minded (Jas. l:8=:Mand. 9:5) who 
will receive nothing from the Lord (Jas. l:7=Mand. 9:5), and an 
explanation why Jesus' promise of answered prayer is sometimes 
not fulfilled (Jas. 1:6-7 and 4:3=Mand. 9:8-9). In addition, 
Hermas emphasizes being complete in the faith (9:6) just as James 
has begun this section with the theme of being "perfect and com- 

2°Charles Taylor, "The Didache Compared with the 
Shepherd," JPh 18(1890): 320-321 offers five examples of how 
Hermas has adapted the Epistle of James. 

bla,ining God when prayers are not answered (Mand, 9:8) just as 

(1:13) , Temptation begins frcm within the human being ( Jas . 
1:13); therefore, one can only blame one's self (Mand, 9:8). 
Thus Hennas has incorporated the content of Jas. l:4--7 into Mand. 
9 and, at the same time, sharpened the contrast between ''complete 
in faith" and "wavering because of double-mindedness" . 

While thinking about James' teaching on prayer. Hennas' 
mind apparently wandered to other terminology of James later in 

,,,^ -^ ,-., p, -.^ ^"7 ^^- J-, c-^ ^": 4 c^ -J ','■■ r-1 ■-'- -^^ -'■■ ^^ ^ \^ r< ir^x-" ^ "^ -^ a- "'■-■ o ^-, -* "i-^ -i -^ ^ h^^ ''\ r^ O . "^ 1 ^ 

ill J^ A, i. v-i, v^ L-t ,. i t^T O O 4. i^- CS. J, i *'". 0„ ^ '^ i, I J. y / v^ ^ i/ -L .,L J, •J> i j. ^^ I--J J, .U —U '•- I *■ ^ ^ ^' ^ ^■- - " .^ . j- J. y 

J ' 

Janies had contrasted wisdom from above with that which is 
earthly, unspiritual, devilish (3:15), Since Hennas employs this 
3a;ns t eriTir no logy m another context about aouble — inmcisdness 
I, Ma, no , 1 1 : 5 — o , , it is 1 1 ks 1 y t na t i n Mano . 11 wo ©ncounter 
anothojr allusion to Jas. 3:15,17 although new content 13 put into 
James' terminology. An allusion to a third passage of James 
(4:8} is also possible at Mand. 9:7 where both authors combine a 
call to purity of heart with a warning against double-mindedness. 
We btjlieve that this cluster of references to Jamesian terminol- 
ogy and subject matter at Mand. 3 establishes the fact that 
Hermas had previously read the Epistle of James, although at the 
tim^e of writing James' epistle is probably not before him in 


Once we have established one certain allusion, then the 
n u. III & IT o ~o.. s o ■,-. n & v © ^i s Hi. n- ,1 3 s- o ^r s* x in x „i 3. ir x/ c c s. t-.- ^0. j. ci ir \^ c o ri t ,x x" ru o "^ji. ir 
suspicion tnst Jainesian tsmiinology is present m other parts of 
this writincf. In both ciocuiuents we encounter the followinCT 

plinS-SSQ .xOQ'Y ■ ^^ S©VSnrOa.Ci CiSSCX I'p ^ XOIl Ot C^U.3. j,l"i„l-3S Ciis^ c OOiTlS xPOin 

above (Mand. 11:8; Jass . 3; 17); a condemnation of the rich (Vis. 
3,9,5-6; Sim. 2; 5; Jas. 2:5; 5:1,4); a blessing upon those who 
endure trials (Vis. 2,2,7; Jas. 1:12; 5:10--lla); warnings against 
instability (Mand, 5,2,7; Jas. 1:8) and blaspheming the honorable 
name >h:,ich vvas iz-ji/oked over them (Sim. 8,6,4; Jas. 2:7); and 

,u i.a Q J, J.. .'- :. O u. c i:? .J, r c: ilicm.L,l. .1 ,:i , .i , j. ; ua^ . u : .-i / , 

J. . i i ; 

wlsdoEi and understand. InCT 'Siffi. 5,4,3; Jas. 1:5') in confidsnce 
C: c s "' ^v' 1 ^"' CT i ■■" '■ w^ 1 ni . u , o cs ' i^'i s I'j n J c? : "^ ' ,.■' 3 s . x : *;5 '■ » j_ n s.o Ci i u, i on 


righteousness (Sim. 9,19,2; Jas. 3:18), the spirit K^ho was made 
to dwell in us (Mand, 3:1; Sim. 5,6,5; Jas. 4:5), good as coming 
from above but evil being earthly and devilish (Mand. 11:5~B; 
Jas. 1:17), desire leading to sin and sin in turn bringing forth 
death ( Mand . 4,1,2; Vis , 1,1,8; Jas . 1:14-15), evil speaking 
described as a restless evil (Mand. 2:3; Jas, 3:8), and God as 
the one able to save and destroy (Mand. 12,6,3; Jas, 4:12), Vxrho 
is full of compassion (Mand. 4,3,5; Jas. 5:11) and generous in 

'^■^It is far less likely that Jame.s utilized Hermas and 
transferred two or three sayings from one paragraph (Mand. 9) 
into different settings. Cf . the use of Jonah 4:2 and 3:9 in 
Joel 2 : 13-14 . 


J c!.& . i ; cj 

Within these general similai 

used vocaouiary 

■1 1 T» 

- -•- ~ i . 

3 especially striking: SLipvxoc,, cxKazaazazoc, , 
(aALi'ay'ijjyeuj , Kapnoc c5 i icc i. octu y n q , TTcAuajrAayxyoc, , anhioQ. 
I Dorii cxQCiixRBTi.'ts 'ttiB onensss o t God. is acciaiineci (Msnd-, 
1;1; Jas. 2:19), the law and the commandments are emphasized 

\ o _■. Ill . ^J , u , o , Li , u , o ; o , o , ji ; v j. ;;-. . x , o , 'i , J csS . 1 : ii O ; ^i ; o -- 1 i:. ; 4 : 1 1 - 

12) , a blessing upon those who both hear and observe is encoun- 
tered (Sim. 5,3,9; Jas, l;22--25i, a similar eschatological per- 
spective is present, ^^ the glorification of long-suffering and 
its relation to perfection is posited (Mand. 5,2,3; Jas. 1:3-4}, 

^, „ --. ^_. _^ „., 4, ,^_ ,:^ / s jv „ ..„ ■( ^ r^ f- ^. 

.f... T.. ^.^ „. .^ ^-., ,.-^ X .,._^,,^^ ,^, 1 .|... 1^ .f^.t^„|. ;-::^n'^ -V 

double-mindedness are developed along similar lines 

p 1 r- Y\ (^ '- 

c A 8 1^' a. r e 

1 . o ^~ ■I 

an enemy 

f- ^-^ :' Q '■ Y1'-- O O 1 

^ .:. '1 


in James. In both docunients wealth itself and not the desire for 
riches must be cut away before someone can become useful to the 
Lord (Vis. 3,6,6), Both epitomize the oppression of the wealthy- 
through picturing their fields (Sim. i;i,8; Jas. 5:4), although 
Hennas coffers positive advice to the rich about their fields 

u r . ct DLi v e , on. o , ii , o x , 
^^ "These are they that 'have f< 

th, but have also riches 
of this v>rorld." Dibelius and Greeven, James, 45 Estate that the 
parable of the elm and the vine (Sim, 2) is the clearest indica- 

tion that the wealthy wer 
munity . 

'y members of the Christian com- 

^bj. ill. x;cj iA(nj.a.!:i jaiUcS Oiix/ 


!^ D J 4fc / , X i. ,i S ::;;^ bt ili C ci O C 11 3 ci ^. X G i 1 3- ki 11 i... ^. I j. til X' .1 C- i1 


. Jl ^u 


-liS Riournino or uiis? opp'fp'fiRp' 

p . q -t V, ^ 

• acre 

sjiQ, incj ax Tile 

esc ha to logical gates re a; 

("When tribulation cometh, they deny their Lord by reason of 

r .. n ci. .i. -i. y , V .i ts 

■5:6 where the business aj 

J.. O. J. X o 

:he merchants and the 

o p p> T s s s J. n cj J. ci XI CI o w n © .r s a r s w a .r n s a ci cf a i ii s t . 
Ths ssnie vi evi of fs, j, tn " SiS> recoo'nit ion and 3.ccept3,nc6; 

i^ Vi r X s>Xi X arj. cose n .?i n c*' 

.i. ~t , i i , J. O , «;, ', 

, S B. p T O HI .1 n B X 

-. --i ,-7 .,., ... 

2 2,24,26, Fur tneriuore , clouble — 
in both James and Hermas,-^^ Not 

term "wretched" ( taAcr iJTupew ) is 

niployso. in i,n!5 iiriiuGQia-..© ccn'C£i>iL ( 

■' T ,-3 < 

-^. .1 C! 4 .V 

ITi , 1 ; o 

1.1 r L n © r nio t b ? 

n each case the definition of double- 
mindedness presupposes a situation where faith is separated from 
vjorks. In Sim. 9,21,2 the clouble-niinded ax'e described as those 

w n o £^ e ■ w o r o. s 
1'' S In 1 l). X s c s n t o 

v.. c: i. i, ci x i 1 J. y i s,j i 

ames this contradictory attitude would character 

io , & , V 

/! LU 1. 

. c, , 569 




i. 1 i f;:^ !._v X i J, y l fc- ,^'^ u. i^ 

J. xlK^ dU jC^U- Cave -L ^ u.iiUSc';-iJ. 0. ;:3^. ,.i,ii lit::^-;. iilc^i; 

L.^ 11 J., y 1 n 

CiOu.b J. &~IuinCi.c-G. p€?Op.i.S WHO SrS lillS'taD^S in &J.1 LilSir ways .allu. 

"Cne SnspnsrQ ot Hsrinss upon uaiuss, D'lit ts-icen 
t o y fis 1, i'lc" ir U-O. c~'y pir€':ssr,iL 5. s'ci^^ono Cos^s s uppo 2r "c J. n. cj ou. f su^pposi. cion 
"tiis.t H6;r'rus.s 6rnp.j,OYSC- ti}€; Episxas o .L .Jcsiuss , T1I6 onj.y otnsr roajor 
S.I tsi^nat 1 V6S a.rG ' ootii iitilizsQ wexj.— icnown Jswisn .uoi"'t3.'to]:ry 

t: ai^ a. X 1 i.y '^ p-ut>S-iu.Ly eiudllci t. J,l,i9 i-i-i-Jii^ K.11B u-riui Ci.i O.L iVUjTle , Oi Xriai. 

ooTii drsw Ills. te r IS, J. ironi a coiunion source. Aj-tiiouyh it nas bsen 
con 3 sc tursQ t-xiSi't "tnis coiniuon ciociiinen't was tne uooK 

quoted in Vis. 2,3,4,-^- certainly the 

■3 '^ '"^ ^ 7^ .— ■—, ^ ^- "^ — . -,■,-, .—= /— 

tnat douD J, s—raiiicx£Q.riess oscs-ycg a stai'ic 
sp i F i t o t Liie CiiT i s c 1 an iiio VGiusnt . 

.J e; 4. 'v *i. .. it tr J- a L a. u 1 1 & J i -i. p i.) i xi c: .1 ui a. => i, u .j o. jn c; o , .t o j. ~ j. 'i- U 

""" "' •-' ' -'- - fciUUi'C 

the ujiiftnown. sourcs at Jas . 4:5 wnich is iasiitij. isci 

..r i' T . . ,. ^ „ , ,-^ -(.. ~r ,,^ -- .* o n ^- ,-,. 4 ^ -! ^1 n '"^. o —. ,„ 4? '^, r^ 1 -s -i o '^ \ 4- T- -^ x, 4 -, 

bstwGsn, do LiOa.6i~-niinu.6Qness ano. purity o£ nsart m MaxiCi, 3 . 7 a. no, 

T ,,.. .._ -! . n !< \ 4- l^ ■^. -^ ->. ^. J- ^- X-. — 4- V .-. 4- V — -.-. 4 -,, J- "? .,~ .,^ -, ^ ^ 1 ^ ..... .... ...^4- r~. ^ ^. -^ ,-. ,^.. 4- 

^ici^a. '* , c , "i / L^j.t; J. cii... L '.,. uci L .uui-ii ia; p ,L » i. J- e Sj u x i^' j.i~ jug 4I l 'wO iij.j.t;u. l 

occjxqquv.^' is €i]ip J. ciy ao, paLiiBn tnan o c> tciicp cvc^ei^'GCj / 

i's'.LLii uHc ileal L !, X wj-feiilcnT., Ci.itr E:5U'L...i; _Li.i ct i^u.;. lc^-v. ■, -a. !_n,.; u l u.uus_i4,i:; — 
JU j.iiUfeCliit;to&- !, i4 CIE3 . J. . O "■ o / , Uj LiJf ct J.ii.iua I.. c^-i^tai.. v. lj .i, ■.4. f .4' '.44. v ut., ciO u „ ajT y 
xii I'iciliU. . rj aS wtrj-j. a.;.-> ucss., 4. . -j ~ o ctiiu. '•j- ; a , u - o \ULi:£Li.' nifcaniriU tO 

pray"; Aa/Be L-y in answer to prayer; 6 SeoQ as the subject of 
dLc56t/ai, all preceding oiil'UXOQ) together with the common phrases 

O. i. 'C £ '•-V 'iJCXpO T C "J fe £ O b' , T L TTQ'pCi ZOV Kup tOU ACJjSE t i-' , S,nO; O'tT/p 

o t(|jux'4Q , In our opinion,, niucii Ox tiis aoovs ;r;atsri,a.i cou.Ld juust 
as Basij.y us utixizsQ to deiuonstrats a cispjenQsnca upon J3jr1.ssia.11 
vocaouiary . 

O i '^ .-.. Ti 4 v., T 4 ., ^ _ ,' -r - ..... .... .... ^-^ ^ r^ ^.. ,.. T? 4 „„ j_ ,45 ..^ TT .-. ,., ..^ ... --.. TZ r-. .•-. \ 

<n c> u .X. u fcr J. J. u i=3 \ ^^ c5 4ii ^_^ f o -I f i-^'^ i. 44 .i. .u L ii5^' ^ n fc:^ X iiicto , vj ,i. .:^S ; 
J.- ciucii."j<.,a , .LiijiO J- a c '4j p> c; C 4. ci 4. 4. y vile: uaSc; Wa.i.ji x c y q i.' '_t cu Liic SpiiExe 

O .L Lii'w" u„Qii t,- i a J. c:!. L C;: U. s-W XCJ.X, Lii c:u.iL4 u u u !. J L ^ i4C.'x;ii,. rioiiCt, ^ J, ^ Lilt; !v46:& ^ 

i n 'i. e r p 1" e t a, t i G n or J a. s . 1 : o ~ c 

. A P Q _ 

'i U d — 

^ 1,^^ ,.^ ..-. 1.^, .-, ^,. ..3 

)iriP'OSZ Lion o .c '~^ii& isp^j^sti j. 

v^v X ^ i X 1 Ti w i"' ,X & & iO tCj G I i i-4. ^^ ^'^ Vv' ci' i l S, \7 C"' L-i. i. S C C^ \' G JT' £r O. Si I"^ €?' ill S j^' i^. St O j, '■ 

. vvGCS). JOiin'-; 

the Sxispxier': 

^, ^ TT -- 

Ori±y v^itri rj.©rni5.'o i^an o. cic 

. te 

Q © p £ n Q, s n c ' 

iiiplStie 0.i. ^amBS 0& &S.t.3.u 1 IShBCi , 

lateriSi csinon-u 1 Peter, C j. einen l , anu tj3.!iies is conopicuo'j,s , 


t h i'' © e- q u. o t ! 

Hsorsws inc^.iiCie tus sxaropies uj. Aoi^&iiS.iri ori.6r 

v^ a. feiuefi I- caliia .jctiucS ci.,M.,'i).y vv_. Lil 
,4 j„ c*> cj- <3. i^ I jr Ci, u. J, ^ LJ w 

xvSi'lS, D 

3 jlOSpi. Lao.iv.Y Wiltril tHSy u. li 

1 Petsr ciUCi Js.niss si's botii aoiQr'fisseu, 
J-JIB-Spora. snQ incauus similar fflscsr.i3j. .in 

©rm j-Ocjy yivs Ti'i© .linprsssion 

'i /-■; "! 

- J. ,utct L J, i^ I J, Li-lti.T;tr .^ _!, jll J. ..I ci ,L J. --. ,x *C-" i;S 

sgsinst QOub'i, s "'jTi.inciscinS'SS . In our * 

srs DGst expi J.,eQ by coinnion tsscniny pis/tterns i'vitiiin "cue J6;wisi,i~ 

Cn2r IS t isn. c 0133111.111 ty . Ix uncisprisatji 3._i_i. tiiCfSS uocUiTisn'ts ars "trx'S 

e cc.tL.ii.iiX'~:;= u i. Hie; un.u.1 Cll cs. w. i\'._->jii.c; , Liic 

cioiiC't 54.1 'til T'gQ'arcis to prciyf^j" , ciOuuls — KiinQsdnsss 

J J & I,, L C5 u i. j. a. V cr .i. y u. a. a u u. » .-a 

V .- .., ^ , , .... .^ 1 - ._ 4:: _ ..* .4. 1... .-. ^, ..ZJ 

ii cii^i w^j X iV2? , X. a. J. ^,ii ci.iiL-i 

ox . b<3i 4, a.ixy l.Oii , X- J. _£iii .i T-_a. V e L^ciX cuXl j. ts^ii , 'it; — '*o, x.; a. v j. d !-■ , 

S_s_tt-in2, 370 is coxTect whsn. hs statss tiiSt C5.i;rzriy"tori \ s,riCi S&x — 
wyn ; i"ia.vs too irrucn systsuiSt lsscJ whst y»as Oiten .i-xixiu a.nc3 aisor — 

pnxju.ri, uuT. tiicxi. U.O ct L aGcac^L i-<:::;vecij. ' — i-c:<3.ij.y Vi:^LaiK Lii-S iUCLj.I.X 

body of that teaching was which was transmitted thx-'ough the 

Til & s G ill & X 1 th & ii © 3. r "cn s 

Q. 6' <:t K. in, G 'C ^.i ci. Ill G S 3;. 11 Q JB S y u £ ,X D. I"' S S p 11. S G "fc O C B X" u cl 1 11 

^ ;. J. cs. . 

Jl-v' "s,,. A i ^. i J. M s, i J. C- ^ ■-- s -» J. J. U-- i^ j>^ _;. ■^ 

\ uY HBrma,S , lGI" 6;X3.rup j.£" ; Un'Ca.a. 1 "t aOS't 1.1"^ 

inc -i-'u-LiSQ in tins Muir i "t cr i. sn Ucinon . A j. t:iio uoii ws n.a.vs net 3. awsys 
D © n 0,. o 1 G t: o p r B c I s 6" j. y s. c c o 11 n "t r o i' "t x 1 s c o iii. rn o n s .i. x "t 1 s s 01 p ^r ir s p £ c '"■ 

ir. ill s cipps 

n u. .X K n 3. s 


s L In J c s a ^. 1" 5. Q X c X o n w xi x c n u 8. ni b s s, 11 o. c ri £■ o k^hs t pro fa 'x n g 11. t l 6: 5. c n g x ■ r^- u i. 
I1 li s- c In IX j" c tx s Ii 3. x'^ s ci 



I. Apostolic Fathers; 

Barn. The Elpistle of Bai''nabas 

Id. 1 Clement (of Rome), To the Corinthians 

2 CI. 2 Clement or An Ancient Homily 

Did. Didache or The Teaching of the Twelve 


Dg . The Epistle to Diognetus 

Herm. The Shepherd of Hermas 

Mand. The Shepherd' of Hermas, Mandates 

Sim. The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitudes 

Vis, The Shepherd of Hermas, Visions 

Ig, Ignatius 

Eph. To the Ephesians 

Mag. To the Magnesians 

Phld. To the Philadelptiians 

Pol. To Polycarp 

Rom. To the Romans 

Smyr . To the Smyrneans 

Trail. To the Trallians 

Pol. Phil. Polycajrp, To the Phiiippians 

II. Ancient Writers: 


i^.^rad . J?,§Z-§i35S§.._§.io i corum 

CI. Alex. Clement of Alexandria 

D_iv;es Q;?iA§_PAY§s._S§AY,^tu_r ' Who is the Rich that 

shall be Saved? 

Paed. P§e<^ago,3U§_ ; The Instructor 

StiLom- S_t.r 9iE§Lt_§i§ ; The Stromata or Miscellanies 

Clem. Hoffi. Pseudo-Clementine Homilies 

Epict. Epictetus 

piss. Arrian's Discourses of Epictetus 

Epiph. Epiphanius 

Adv. Haer . A dyer bus H aereses ; Against Heresies 

Eus . Eusebius 

Adv. Hae.r. Adversus Haereses; Against Heresies 

HE H i s t o r i a E c c 1 es i as t i c a ; Ecclesiastical His- 

Dem. Ey, DsJEoilstLation_iy^ Demonstration of 

the Gospel 

Iren. Irenaeus 

Adv. H a e r . Adye^r su_s__Haer e_ses ; Against Heresies 

Jos. Josephus 

Ant. Jewish Antiquities 

-4 7, 

Bell . B©l.i.'yj5 '' War 

yi_t:a The Life of Flavius Josephus 

Just. j'ustln Martyr 

2. __ A£o_i . First Apo 1 o gy 

2_JVgol. Second Apology 

D i_a_l , Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 

Orig. Origen 

Q.§A§. • C o n t r a_C e 1 ^^ ; Against Celsius 

Horn. Homilies 

Jqann. lB_J,oii3-.-IiIl§ro_C^BiIl§.i^^^^^ Commentary of the 

Gospel of John 

lit. CoMmentarior^^^^ i 10-17; Commen- 

tary on the Gospel of Matthew 
Commentary on Romans 

pe_Abrahamo; On Abraham 

De Conf usione Linguarum,- On the Confusion of 


De__Decaloaq ; On the Decalogue 

Q,ifPA„Xi§is^..X?MB.5S_kiJi On the Unchange- 
ableness of God 
D§„J,k.E-i§,.t.§-J..?J 0^ Drunkenness 
„I ll_,Xi.§.?i 933. '' "■ F 1 a c c u s 

J^l§....¥'}M9..„.^.l:...^AJK'i§3SA9-I}-.^'' 0"^ B'light and B'inding 
L.?-ayjS„. AiI-§,9 °.?.i,§,§ '' Allegorical Interpretation 
D§„ J}'lBi§.tAPBS„i^,9i5i5id,Sl '■ Ori the Change of Names 
,ib. Quod^ Omnis Probus Liber sit; Every Good Man 

Op. Mund. P,e_Ql:iif ici9_i^,'^rm^ On the Creation of the 

Post. Cain. P_e_PosJ:erJtat__e^^^^^ On the Posterity and 

Exile of Cain,5,§.91- P.2.§r^ ■ .y,,§„„PrA®JS.ii§_„®.L„.£9,®Iii§; O^i Rewards and Punish- 

Rer . piy. Her. Quls Rerurn Dlv in arum Heres ; who is the Heir? 

Sac. Abe_l, .D§_Sac_riJJci_is_Atae^^ On the 

Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 

S_ob r . P_e_S_qbri_e_tat^ On Sobriety 

Som. .D,§__Sj3jnn_i i s ; On Dreams 

lil§c, • li®S- Me_,i£e£i.§Aibus._,Jd,§3,4i^^ 0^^ the Special Laws 

Vijt. Mg_s. ils_._Vi ta_J|_qsJ_s ; The Life of Moses 

Her , MsZ^l"^..! tus 

_P hae d . Phae d r us 

R ep_ . R_§E!i]2i.i c. 

Th_ea_et . Th®.§ei e. JJi.§ 

-Tr„§Ii3' De Tranqulllate Anlml; On Tranquility of Mind 

Ps.~Athan. Pseudo-Axhanasius 

Q.y:.§.§.§_t • .§il. Ant. Quaestiones ad Antiochum 

Ps . -Phoc . The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 

Ps. -Plato Pseudo-Plato 

Def . Definitiones 





. Ling. 

Dec . 


. Immut 

Ebr . 

Flacc . 

IIB. g, . 

Lea , 



Ngm . 

Omn . 

Prob , 

■ 4 7 2 ■■ 


Eg. l.EL4_§.ty:u-l§.:§„M5i.§J,®,§ '■ The Epistles of Seneca 

.YAi- ,l„§S_t • R§...S^1S:.^....3-^3S3 ' '■^ri the Happy Life 

Adv. I.3id. h§:Y-§.L§M§—'l.B.!-k^§.9M' Against the Jews 

Ad V , Ma_rc , i^^§:yi§,E§.}i§„^^.sLl.£A9.Ii^M. '• Contra M a r c i o n 

Cult. Feni, P_§_CulJ:ji_FemiJi^^^^ The Apparel of Women 

Monog De Monogamia, ; On Monoaamy 

Pat. De.„PMJ;§.S,tl§ ' On Patience 

Pud. M §.,_PjJ,di:iLi,ti§, ; Oi'^- Modesty 

III. Books, Series, and Periodicals: 

.Te si§i5s Ht ' R.H. Charles, 2 Vols. 
BAG Bauer, Arndt , and Gingrich, A_G r eek__Le>y.,cj^ 

9S^.^SM§-„3.^Jd......%S3..t..^E.P„I}:.% ' 19 5 7 ed . 

BAGD Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A_Greek 

Lexicon of the New Testament , 1979 ed. 
BDF Blass, Debrunner , and Funk, A_,G.reek__Gramin^^^ 

9l..§ 1.SW Tlest ament 
BB'Th Beitrage zlir B^drderung der christlichen 

Bib . Eyj3l i c a 

BJGZ Beilage zum Jahresberichte des Gymnasiums zu 

Z i 1 1 au 
B J R L B;u_J^l e t j.ji_ oX„. t^^ 

_B_T^r BA!?,.i-§_X£§;B,§,,l§;L9.?;i 

BZ Bibli_sche_Ze^ 

C_BQ Cstj;]^ol_ic___Bi^W^ Q,M3..?„.t.§,.?!',.l.Y 

Cj3I1,-_ Neot_;_ Goniectanea Neotestamentica 

_CQ C,on^trjac_tJ.v_e__Qu_ar^^ 

C_QR Chuxch„iiu_arter^ 

Ev_Q .Ev§B9§J:,i£§A_fiB.§£i§il.Y 

EvTh lX§.?i9^Als,che_jIlieoi^g_j^^^ 

Ex lll2s_Ex£osJ._t or 

E3£T E?SR93.1.t.^iy—IAE§..§. 

GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schrif tsteller 

HCHT Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament 

HNT Handbuch sum Neuen Testament 

HTR U§:EE.§:FM-Sih^SLlS19A93j^^„R§y..i-3M 

ice international Critical Commentary 

ISBE The International Standard Bible 

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature 


JPh J2,li£.I}jJ__oJ-,_?,lliJ:.9.l9.S'JX 

JR .>ZoiiiC.IL3ul__oX„B§iisJ-j9-Q 

.Jl'DTh Jahrblicher flir Deutsche Theologie 

JrPr_Th, J§hriiucHex_f ur__Prot_e^^ 

JSNT, J9J4ZB.§A„f.2J__Lli®™Si,lld^^ 

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies 




Jlj. X i. J. w 































Th. Handle, NT 


J.oBll!lS-i_ol__Xtt?-.5i93i,9.§,.l Si,y.'3;A§,.§ 

Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar uber das Keiie 


Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 

Loeb Classical Library 

Lllther a,n_ Theo 1 og i c_a I 

J. P. Migne, Pat ro 1 og_i a__ G^^^^ 

J . P . Migne ,^^^^^ 

Nev^ Century Bible Commentary 

Neue F'olge 

Xti_?.„Nag_H_ammad i_^^ ed. James M. 


New International Commentary on the New 


New International Greek Testament Commentary 

Das Neue Testament Deutsch 

Ti^.§-,„Qiil._.X?.§,t§I5.§,D.lL,.Ps£y;.Q.s^^^ ^-^ James H. 

Charlesworth, 2 Vols. 


l:L?19J s ji an t l^s che_^^^^ 

Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testament! Graece, ed. 

A.M. Denis and M. de Jonge 

T he R eview and Expositor 

Die Re_li_gJ._qn, in Gesj^hichte und Gejjenwart 


R sy.M ®_.ii J. Hi s.,.t o Jie_ d e s_ R e j 

Society of Biblical Literature 

Sources Chretiennes 

S_t ud 1 a_E van^el i c a 


Supplements to Novum Testanientum 

Strack und Billerbeck, ,Komm_enta^r^_2]jm^^^^^I^^^^^ 

Te st ament , 5 Vols. 

S t_ud_i a^_Th^o J^ogi ca 

Studia in Veteris Testament! Pseudepigrapha 

S.OU t hwe s t exn_ Jour^ 


ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 

Vols , 


Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testa- 
Iheologisc he s Literaturblatt 

T he o l_o£i_s che _£u^^^ 


ThT ,T_heoJ.og_isch_e__Xi j„dsc^^^^ 

f h Z Til.?-9 J5,ai.§£il^„ 2 e i t 

ThZS T he o I og^isc he_ Z^e^^^^ 

TU Texte und Untei'suchungen zur GeschicJrite der 

altcliristlichen Literatur 

ZKG Z§,ijLs£h_ri|J__Xilll_^lll!.£.^^^^^ 

ZWTh .Zeit_§£hri^f t_f u 

IV. Other Abbreviations: 

ASV American Standard Version 

b, Babylonian Talmud 

c. circa; approximately 
cf. confer; compare 

ch. chapter 

diss. dissertation 

ed. editor, edited by 

e.g. exempli gratia; tor example 

esp. especially, in particular 

etc. et cetera; and so on 

f,ff following 

i.e. id est; that is 

JB Jerusalem Bible 

KJV King Janies Version 

LXX Septuagint 

MT Masoretic Text 

n, note, footnote 

NASB New American Standard Bible 

NEB New English Bible 

NIV New International Version 

par. parallel (s) in other Synoptic gospels 

P(P) page(s) 

RSV Revised Standard Version 

s.v. sub verba; under the word 

TEV Today ^s English Version 

t.r. textus receptus 

tr. translator 

trans. translation 

Un. University 

Vol(s). Volumn(s) 

vs. versus; in opposition to 

v( v) . verse (s ) 

X number of occurrences, times 



Aalen, S. "St Luke's Gospel and the Last chapters of 1 Enoch.'' 
NTS 13(1966-67) : 1-13. 

A damson, James B, The Epistle of James. NICNT. Grand Rapids: 

Eerdnians, 1976. 

. li^n. Jliduc t JY^^ . Unpub . 

diss. Cambridge, 1954. 
, . James: The Man and His Message. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 

prepublication edition. 
Aland, Kurt. ''Der Herrenbruder Jakobus und der Jakobusbrief . '' 

ThLZ 69(1944): 97-104. 

. s.v. '• Jakobusbrief . " RGG. 1959 ed. 

Alford, Henry. TJhe_Greek^^^^^ Vols. 1-4. London: Rivertons, 

18 59. 
Alien, WilloLicfhby C. Go§j3el__Acc^^^ lto,_S_. Matthew, ICC. Edinburgh: 

Clark, 1912 , 
Allison, Dale C, Jr. "The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic 

Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels." NT_S 28(1982): 1-32. 
51k?-_A5-,i®~]ii£§.0.§_.X§J;,hers . Vols. 1-10. ed. Alexander Robei'ts and 

James Donaldson, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprinted 1970 's 

and 80 's. 
i^R9.93AY£-§A§...Jl§ri9:9U.^...3J:.§:§.9.P. • ®d. Matthew Black. PVTG . ed. Albert 

M . Denis and Marinus deJonge. Leiden: Brill, 1970, 
Aiidet, Jean P. ha„Dijl_ach_ej__ i^ Etudes 

bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1958. 
Baa.sland, E^lrnst. "Der Jakobusbrief als neutestaffientliche Weis- 

heitsschrif t . " STh 36(1982): 119-132. 
ThiS„,Bab;£lojiia^^ Talmud, ed, I, Epstein. London: Soncino, 1935. 
Bacon, Benjamin. "Jesus and the Law." JB_L 47(1928): 203-231. 
Bammel, Ernest, s.v, tttuxoq. TDNT VI; 885-915. 
Barth, Gerhard. ''Matthew's Understanding of the Law." in Born- 

kamm, Gunther; Barth, Gerhard; and Held, Heinz J. Tr,a,(litii?.Il 

^IL'l^llli 6i?££.§..t§,,L4.2R.,.,ill„M • ^'^ ' Percy Scott. Philadel- 
phia: Westminster, 1963. 
Bauckham, Richard. "The Study of Gospel Traditions Outside the 

Canonical Gospels: Problems and Prospects." Go.s'ge].__PM'£§.R§..9.~ 

tives. ed. David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT , ^gg-gy-g-: '35'9r453, 
Bauer, Walter; Arndt , William F,; and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A 

§££.§.^E n g|i _L e X ij^^ 

C h£i sj: ian^ jii_t^e i^ t u^^ . 2nd ed, F. Wilbur Gingrich and 

Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: Un. of Chicago, 1979. 
Bauernfeind, Otto. s.v. anq, . TDNT VII: 275-278. 
Beas ley-Murray , George R. Th^e__Gener_al^__E£ 

Jude , and 2 Peter. Bible Guides. London: Lutterworth, 1965. 
Bellinzoni, Arthur J. The Sayings of Jesus in the Writings of 

Jli^y n_Ma_r tx¥: • SNT . Lei den : Brill, 1967, 
Berger, Klaus. M_e_J3e^sebzesauslegun^^ Assen: Neukirchener , 

1972. " " "" 


Bertram, George, s.v. utpoc;. TpNT VIII: (502-613. 

Best, Ernest. ''1 Peter and the Gospel Tradition." NTS 16(1969- 
7 0): 95-113. 

E> e Y s c h 1 a g , W i 1 i i b a 1 d , De r_„ Jr i e f_de s_J^ . KEK. Getting en: 
Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht , 1897. 

_^ . "Der Jakobusbrief ais urchrlst liches Geschichtsdenk- 

mal." ThSKr 48(1874): 105-166. 

Bishop, Eric B' . E' . "Three and a Half Years?" ExT 61 (1949-50): 
J. ii, o t . 

Black, Matthew. An_4iiajJiaX?,„-_j^J?££2iL9M^^^ • 

Oxford: Clarendon, 1954. 

Blackman, Edwin C. The Epistle o f Ja mes. Torch Bible Commen- 
taries. London: SCM, 1957. 

Blass, E'riedrich; Debrunner, Albert; and Funk, Robert W. A_J3re_ek 
erature. Chicago: Un. Press, 1961. 

B 1 o m , A , H . P_e __b r i e f_v 3^._. J a c o^^^^^^ . Dordrecht: Braat, 1869. 

Blondel, Jean-Luc. "Theology and Paraenesis in James," ThD 28 
( 1980) : 253-256. 

Bowker , John. The„,,.Tar£Uffis_and Cambridge : Un, 

Press, 1969. 

Bradley, David G. "The Topos as a Form in the Pauline Parae- 
nes is, '' JBL 72(1953) ; 238-246. 

Brausiann, Georg. ''Der Theoiogrsche Hintergrund des Jakobus- 
brief es," ThZ 18(1962): 401-410. ^ ,,.,...,. 

B r a u n , He r b e r r;"" Spa l^jujii s cn-na^ 

Radikalism^^^^^ Vols. 1-2. Tubingen: Mohr , 1957. 

. s . V . noLt u) . T DI|;T VI: 458-484, 

Brooks, James A. "The Place of James in the New Testament Canon, ^' 
SWJTh 12(1969): 41-55. 

Brown, John P. "Synoptic Parallels in the Epistles and E'orm- 
History.-' NTS 10(1963): 27-48. 

Bruckner, Wilhelm. "Zur Kritik des Jakobusbrief es . " ZWTh 17 
i 1874 ) : 530-541 . 

Biichsel, Friedrich. s.v. dLaKpLuu . TpNT III: 946-949, 

Bultmann, Poadolf. s.v. eAeoQ , TDWI 11: 477-487. 

. s.v. neueoc,. TDNT Vll' 40-43. 

__. .|y:^sto_ry__^oX_the„.^YIlP^.i.i^ ^^ • John Marsh. New- 
York: Harper and Row, 1963. 

. De r_S_t i 1_ _de r___p_au^^^ - 

£ll§_D i§utX,i,i3,^ • Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1910. 

Theology of the New Testament . Vols. 1-2. tr. Kendrick 

Grobel. London: SCM, 1951, 1955. 
Bunsen, Christian C.J. VoJ^LsJan(y.ges___M . 

Vols. 1-8. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1866. 
Burney, Charles F. Zkt_XP_?ii-.Z__9J_-.oiL?-.-,LoiI,^- Oxford: Clarendon, 

1925 . 
Cadoux, Arthur, The__T.hougiit_o^^^^ London: Clarke, 1944, 

Calvin, John. Commenjt_ari^e_s__j5n_j:^te tr. John 

Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. 
Campenhausen, Hans von. T,he___Forjiati_o_n_o^^ tr, 

J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. 

• 4 i / ■ 

Cantinat, Jean, ''The Catholic Epistles." in Robert, Andre and 
Feuillet, Andre. X0i.L?oil}i5JAoQ._,t9-..Ji>^^^ "tr . 

Patrick Skehan. New York: Deschee, 1965. 

. t§„^_ipJ:Jlies___de„,A§.Jii}.L,„ J§£3il§J;_£jL_^^^^ • Source s 

bibliques, Paris: Gabalda, 1973. 
C a r r i n g t o n , Philip. T h e_Pj; i_m i tiv e _C_h^^^^^ . Cambridge; 

Un . Press, 1940. 
Carroll, Kenneth I. , "The Place of James in the Early Churciri." 

B JRL 44(1961-62): 49~57. 
Chaine , Joseph. L'Egitre de S_%int_J^^^ Etudes bibliques. 

Paris: Gabalda, 1927. 
Charles, Robert H. TJie_ A£o c_r Y,ph-.^^..?BA_„P §-£ E^^^^ 

T e si§JMi5J?-^-iD^-- Eli9"Ai§-.b • Vols. 1-2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. 
, f'li.§„G.r-®®K^..J!^-§ZsAon,_s_of_t^^^ 

r iarchs . Oxford: Clarendon, 1908. 
C h a r 1 e s w o r t h , J am e s H . The_ _o 1 _d jTest am^^^ 

New_„Tes_t ament . Cambridge: Un . Press, 1985. 
Chase, Frederic H . "Peter, First Epistle." A _Ili c t J o na r y_ q f _ 

Bible, ed. James Hastings, 1900 ed. 
Cohn , Leopold and V'lendland, Paul. Phllonis Alexandri ni Opera Quae 

Super_suri_t . Vols;. 1-7. Berlin: DeGruyter , 1930. 
Connolly, Richard H, "The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of 

Barnabas." .JThS 33(19 3 2): 237-253. 
Conzelmann, Han.s . s.v. xodpu). TDNT IX: 359-372. 
Cooper, Robert M. ''Prayer: a Study in Matthew and James." 

Ell£.OMJ5-.,L§i" 29(1968): 268-2 77. 
Court, John M. "The Didache and St. Matthew's Gospel." SJTh 34 

( 1981 i : 109-120. 
Craddock, J.G. "A Possible Connection between the Letter of James 

and the Events of John 7 and 8." SE 7:141-144. Berlin: 

AK-ademic-Veriag , 1982 . 
C r e d n e r , Karl A . lln J. e i t un g_ i^^^^^^ d §..§_ _N ePi®_ Jll e §J.§JlLS|lt • Halle: Waisen- 

hauses , 1836 . 
Dalman , Gustaf H . Di.e_J^_or_te_j;es^^^^ 

kanonischen iudischen Schrifttums und der aramaischen 

Spx§i^li®... siZPXd^ZS. • Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1930. 
Danby, Herbert, f h e_ M j. s hnah, . Oxford: Un. Press, 1933. 
Danielou, Jean. The Theolog y o f Jewish Christianity, tr . John A. 

Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964. 
Dautzenberg, Gerhard. "Ist das Schvrarverbot Mt . 5, 33-37; Jak. 

5,12 ein Beispiel f-ur die Torakritik Jesu?" BZ 25(1981) : 

4 7-66. 

Davids, Peter H. The_J]£isOe_^^^ NIG TO. Grand Rapids; 

Eerdmans , 1982 , 
.^' "James and Jesus." GosgeJ.__Pe_rs£ecrt_ive_s . ed. David Wen- 
ham. Sheffield: JSOT, igFsT '^'6 763-84 .""' 

. " Jesus-Paraenesis in the Catholic Epistles." read at 

the Society of Biblical Literature Meeting, Dec. 1984. 

. "Tradition and Citation in the Epistle of James." 

5 cjiig t ux;e^j._ 5^^^ ed. W.W. Gasque 
and W.S. Laser, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, 113-126. 

Davidson , Samuel . ML.J.B-L^-°*iS_tJ.SLD:^_*o_ti^^ 

men-t . Vols, 1-2. London: Kegan, 1894. 

■478- , Williajn D . 3']}._s^.Seit ins_^3f__t^^^ Cam- 

bi-idge: Un. Press, 1964. 

, PauJ^_ and_Rabb4n^^ London: SPCK, 1955. 

Davison, James E. "Anomla and the Question of an Antinomian 

Polemic in Matthew." JBL 104(1985): 617-635. 
de Jonge , Marinus and Hollander, Harm W. J,he_'±§st§jnents_^^ 

Twei Yie .Pat r i,^a^^^ . S V T P 8 . Leiden; Brill, 

19 85, 
_____ ^ ; Hollander, Harm W, ; de Jonge, H,J.; Korteweg, Th . The 

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of 

.%h§-.^.ES^~—lS.E%. • PVTG 1 • 2 , Le iden : Brill, 1 978. 

_. "Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve 

Patriarchs." S t^d i_e.s__ori _J^ T.§_§„t§m,§n t s of the Twe 1 ve__Pa t - 

-Li^££.ll,§ ■ Leiden: Brill, 19 7 5, 183-2 4 6. 

Testamenta XII Pa tr iarcharum. PVTGl. Leiden: Brill, 

19 70 . " '"" ^"" 

_____ . T he !r e_s t ame nj: s_o f t |ie „jr we Ive £ §. t r i_a r_c_h sj A S tjidxjSj. 

Jthsij: Tei?..L'. Ci^JIEO sAi ,i OQ /_ .113:^ .QriSiQ- As sen: van G or cum, 

19 53 . 
Deppe, Dean B. The SaYings of Jesus in the Epistle of James. 

diss. Free University, Amsterdam, Chelsea, Mi.: Book- 
er a f t e r s , 19 89, 
de We 1 1 e , W i 1 h e 1 m M . L . Ku.rze_Erkl_aiuu^^ der Apojs te Iges^^ . 

Leipzig: weidmann, 1848. 
Dibelius, Martin. Der_Bri^ef_d KEK. Gdttingen: Vanden- 

hoeck una Ruprecht , 1921. 
. A__Fr_esjT. __Approach _t o the _]tew^^^^^^ 

tian Literature. New York: Scribner, 1936. 
. Fro.f "^j ad it a on to Gojsjjel. tr . Bertram woolf . London: 

Redwooo , J.y r J . 
_, Der,„ HLrJ:_des_Jierra^^^ HNT . Die Apostolischen V'ater TV, 

Tubingen: Mohr , 1923. 

. James: A Commentarv on tne Epistle of James. Hermaneia. 

Revised by Heinrich Greeven. tr. Michael Williams. Phila- 
delphia: Fortress, 1976. 
D i 1 1 ma r , W i 1 h e 1 m , V_^e tjis__x?.§,isjn_entjjs___i^^^^ D^l f^^Al^e siJ:™©!! ^ t" 

lJjS..k®II,„P§i§il§A§.S.-„^.f..§— E^^^ • '^'^'^ t ingen : Vanden- 

hoeck und Ruprecht, 1903. 
Dods , Marcus. An_Xntroduct^^^ London: Hod- 

der and. Stoughton, 1889. 
Doty, William G . Letter^s__m^ Philadelphia: 

Fortress, 1973. 
Draper, Jonathon. "The Jesus Tradition in the Didache." Gos_pe_l 

Perspectiye_s . ed, David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984, 

sTfe 9 - 28 8 ."'" ^^ 
Dtingan, David L. .T h e _ s_a y i n g s__o f __J e^^ . 

Philadelphia: Portress, 1971. 
DuPlessis, Paul J. ,T E A.E I_0 E : The Idea of Perfection in the New 

_T e s.t ame rrt . Kampen; Kok, 1954. 
East on, Burton S. "The Epistle of James," The_Jnt.erp_rejte_r^^^^^ 

Bible. New York: Abingdon, 1957, XII: 3-74. 
Eichholz, Georg. Gia.y-.'be_ und_W_e^^^ 

Theologische Existenz Heute. NF 88. Munchen : Kaiser, 1961, 


E 1 e d e r , P , Felix. J ako bu s b r i^e^ 3BA., 3SiK..3P.L9Al£i ■ Unpubl. diss. 

We i n , 1 9 6 C5 . 
Elliott-Binris , Leonard E . Gali ieaii_chrjst Studies in Bib- 

1 i, 2 3^1 „ ,.T1L? i3l_9,aY " London: S C M , 1956. 
_. "James 1:18: Creation or Redemption?" NTS 3(1956-57): 

14 8-161 . 
Ellis, E. Earle. Jili:e__G93.^.A„.9.I...Ii}lB^i- NCBC, London: Oliphants, 

19 7 4. 

__ . Paul^s_Use^ of_ the_01d jTest^^^^ Grand Rapids: Baker, 

'"""'l957 """ " ] 

Ermoni , V. s.v. "Jacques (Epitre de Saint).'' Di£tionaj^re_jie_la 

Bible . III. 1910 ed, 
F e i n e , Paul. Der_ _ Jakobusto 

s t ehungsv^er ha 1^^^ Eisenach: Wllckens, 1893. 
Ferris, T.E.S. "the Epistle of James in Relation to 1 Peter." CQR 

128( 1939) : 303-308 . 
Feuillet, Andre. "Le sens du mot Parousie dans I'Evangile de Mat- 

thieii: Comparaison entre Matth. XXIV et Jac V, 1-11." 

Studies in_t ne__Back^r gm^ New 1I§ s t amen t_. and ^^^^^^ 

Es c_ha t o l_^ogY . ed, W.D, Davies and D. Daube . Cambridge: Un, 

Press, 1956, 261-280. 
Fichtner, Johannes, s.v. 6py/] . TpNT V: 394-4 12. 
B'lusser, David. "Do not commit adultery, Do not murder." . 

ed . S, Talmon. Jeru.salem: Magnes, 1964, IV: 220-224. 
Foerster, Werner, s.v. elprwn. J-MWh H: 406-417. 
Forbes, P.B.R. "The Structure of the Epistle of James." EQ 44 

(1972) : 147-153 , 
B' ranee;, R.T. Matthew^ lY-§J3S.§-i,,i.§,t §3.9- .Tsacheir. Exeter: 

Paternoster, 1989. 
Francis, B'red 0, "The Form and Function of the Opening and Clos- 
ing Paragraphs of James and 1 John." ZNW 61(1970): 110-126. 
Fry Euan, "The Testing of Faith: A Study of the Structure of the 

Book of James." BTr 29(1978): 427-435. 
Fulford, Henry W. "James." A_McJ,A,o|i§;£Y. 9J_ C_hr is t__arK3__t^^^^ 

Gospels, ed. James Hastings. 1906 ed . 
Funk , Franc is cus X . ed . Did_ascalia_^_^^^^^ . 

Paderbornae : Schoeningh, 1905. 
F'urnish, Victor P. Th§_Lo_ve_Con})5a_n^^^ Nash- 

ville: Abingdon, 197 2. 

_. The_Mqral_Teach_ing_or^^^^ Nashville: Abingdon, 1979. 

______• Th§jDlo3Y_ancL„}i?_s^^^^ Nashville: Abingdon, 1968. 

Gammie, John G. Paraenetic Literature: "Toward the Morphology of 

a Secondary Genre." .Semeia 50(1990): 41-77. 
Gass , D.W. "Betrachtungen liber dem Jacotausbrief . " PrKZ (1873): 

Gaugusch , Ludwig. Pex„ii.§i}l!.S§„ll.§A.t„.d6r„..jJ_§,fe^^ 

tA§£be_S.lB,di.§ • Freiburg ; Herder , 1914. 
Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory and Manuscript : Oral Tradition and 

HrJ-Jt J e^n___ T,ra n s m i s s i^^^ 

t_ia_nitY. tr. Eric Scharpe . Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 

1 9 el . " " 
. The _Or_i_gi^ trans, of Eyan- 

geliernas Forhistoria . London : SCM , 19 7 9. 

- 4 b O ~ 

. T r ad j^t i, o n_ and _ Jllian § in is s l o n in E s r 1 y_,.C h r i s_ t ^ . Con, 

Neot . XX. tr. Eric Sharpe. Lund: Haken Ohlssans, 1964. 
G e r r e V i n k , G . van , Pje^,.br i. e f _van Jakoijus i n_z i j ne, _d^^ , 

Utrecht; Kernink, 1875. 
Gei'tner, M. "Midrashim in the New Testament." JSS 7(1962); 267- 

292 . 
Glover, Richai'd, "'The Didacl-ie's Quotations and the Synoptic 

Gospe 1 s . '■ NTS 5(1958-59): 12-29. 
Goodspeed, Eldgar J. Thei^Agocrypha . New York: Random House, 19 59. 
. An_ Introduct ion____t^^^^ the_ New, T§§_tament , Chicago ; Un . 

Press, 19 37. 
Gordon, Robert P. "KAI TO TEAOL KxPIOY EIAETE ( JAS , V. 11).'' JThS 

26 ( 1975) : 91-95 . 
Gotaas, Daniel S. Tii§_J3J.,d-JI'®^§.^:§.™®Il-t ili_J?A® _lEis 1 1 e_ oX„t h^^ 

Hebrews, the Epistl e of James, and the Epistle of Peter . 

Unpub. diss. Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. 

Chicago, 1958. 
Grate, Eduard. PJ,e^_ SJ_.elJ unj3_ 3md_Bed 

der__ Entwicklun9^__des_^^ . Tubingen : Mohr , 1904 . 

Grant , Robert M , A__H.i_sj:_or icaj. Jntroduct ion. to^ .t^h.?._New_Testaj^^^ 

New York: Harper and Row, 1963. 
Grimm, Willbald, "Zur Einieitimg in den Brief des Jacobus." ZWTh 

13 ( 1870) : 377-394 . 
Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey . Grand Rapids: Baker, 

Gr oshe ide , Freder ick W . De___BrJ.ef , a§n_^^ eil,_de„Brief^ y^ 

J^,§„^£i?,)±,§ • Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. Amsterdam: 

Bottentaurg, 192 7 and Kampen, Kok , 1955. 
Grundjnann, Walter. l\§;§.._E.Y3J13.§AlJi}Il.J2^^9h Liikas . Th. Handk . NT. Ber- 
lin: Evange 1 , 1 974 . 
, pas _ Evange M^ Th . Handk. NT. Berlin: 

Evangel , 197 2 . 

. s.v. xane Luoc,. TDNT VIII: 1-2 6. 

Gryglewicz, Feliks. "L'Epitre de .St. Jcjcques et 1'Eva.ngile de St. 

Matthieu, '' RTKl 8,3(1961): 33-55. 
G u e 1 i c h , Robert A . Th_e _ S_e r mo n^_oji _ t h e _ M o u n t . Waco, Texas: Word, 

G u n d r y , Robert H . Ma^.thewj_ A _ C ommer^^ 

Zli.?i?Ju2,3A£§:2_A?'.5, • Grand Rapids: Eei'dmans , 1982. 
. ""Verba Christ! ' in 1 Peter: Their Implications Con- 
cerning the Authorship of 1 Peter and the Authority of the 

Gospel Tradition," NTS 13(1966): 336-350. 
Gutbrod, Walter, s.v. vopoQ. T.DNT IV: 1036-1091, esp. 1080-1082. 
Guthrie, Donald. N gw _.X§.§.5 JB§.Il.t.. J,B,L?.9 dM;.5JA9^^ - London: Tyndale, 

1970. "~ 

Hadidian, Dikran Y. "Palestinian Pictures in the Epistle of 

James." ExT 63(1952): 227-228. 
Hagner , Donald A. "The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic B'athers 

and Justin Martyr."§_L„Perspec_ti^^^ ed. David Wenham. 

Shef f ield : JSOT , 1984'",' ''57¥33'~268 '.' "' 

Hahn, E'erdinard. "Die christologische Begruiidung urchristlicher 

Paranese." ZNW 72(1981): 88-99. 
Halson, B.R. "The Epistle of James: 'Christian Wisdom?'" SE 
4:308-314. TU 102. Berlin: Akademie, 1968, 


HajTi.aan, Henry P. "Faith and Woi-'ks in Paiil and James." LThJ 9 

(1975): 33-41. 
Harder, Gun.tiier, s.v, rroynpoc,. 1;DNT VI: 546-566, 
H a r a a c k , Adolf v o rx . P 1 e__j3ks!S,S9A£Si§..._.^^^^^^ 

iLlise-kA,]:?-®. I- Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897. 
Harrison, Everett B" . Ill tipjiu,c ,t ,i on _t o__^^^ X?t,§.t§.?Birilt. • Grand 

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. 
Hart in, Patrick J. James _and the Q Savings o_f Jesiis . Sheffield: 

JSOT, 1991 . 
Hartmann, Gert . "Der Aufbau des Jakobusbrief es . " ZKTh 66(1942); 

Haslehurst, R.S.T. "The Fifth Gospel." Th 35(1937): 96-103, 
Hauck, Friedrich. P_er_ Brje_f__d^ KNT . Leipzig: Deichert, 

19 2 6. 

. . s.v. |i o cxe u w , TDN ,1 IV: 729-735, 

Haupt , Erich. '•'F. Spitta, der Brief des Jakobus . " ThSJKr 69(1896): 

Hayes, Doremus . "James, Ep . of,'' ,The^^_I_nt,er.n_at^^ 

'i'3.£Y.,9..1.QE3-?J^A3. • 19 5 5, 
Hengel, Martin. ''Der Jakobusbrief als antipaulinische Polemik," 

Tradition and Interpretation in the New Test_anient . ea, 

Gerald F. Hawthorn and Otto Betz. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 

1987, 248-2 7 8. 
H e n n e c k e , E d g a r* a ri d S c h n e e m e l c h e r , W i i n e 1 m . New _ Test amen t 

iiEP,£-?;-Y.E,k§ • t^- A.J.B. Higgins. Vols. 1-2, Philadelphia: 

frifestminster , 1963. 
Henshaw, Thomas . NewJTejstame^^ ^ril.„t.§Z§:.?;BZ.^_ilL.-,.'t|}.,§,^JdJ-2hJ^„._^^^ 

S Pll£iv.§jrj]2AE • London: Allen and Urwin, 1952. 
Hiebert, D, Eidmund . The , Epi_stI_e___o^^^ Chicago: Moody, 1979. 
Hilgenfeid, Adolf. "Der Brief des Jakobus." ZWT.h 16(1873): 1-33. 
. "Das Urchristenthum und sejine neuesten Bearbeitungen . " 

ZWTh 1(1858): esp, 40 5f . 

HilJ, David. .T|]:_?.^J3P.-§E.,?-A.._Q1 M§,ttA§.H' NCBC . London: Marshall, 

Morgan, and Scott, 1972. 
Holtzmann, Heinrich J. "Die Zeitlage des Jakobusbrief es . " 2rWTh 

25(1882): 2 9 2-310. 
, "Jakobusbrief," BJ^k^AzpsiLiMPS III- ed . Daniel Schenkel . 

Leipzig: Brodhaus, 1871. 
„• Lehxku£h__.*^.§Z.^_A4.§.,ti^^ E_iiLl§.iltun9_._4j}._d^ 

Neue 'festainent . Freiburg: Mohr , 1892. 
. Lelyr buph__de r___ne2a_t^^ T h§i5,.tL?l3ig • Tubingen: 

Mohr , 1911 . 
. Die Synotiker , HCNT 1. Tubingen: Mohr, 1901. 

Hoppe , Rudo If , P_er_theologische_JH_i^^ . 

Wurzburg: Echter, 1977, 
Horst, Friedrich. "Der Eid isn Alten Testament." Ev_Th 17(1957): 

366-384 , 
Horst, Pieter van der, The_Sentences^ SVTP 

4. Leideh: Brill, 1978, 
Hort , Fenton J, A. T}ie__E_p_i_st^l_e__p_f__St^^^ ^J,§-..?56s- London: MacMillan, 

1909. "" ' "' 

Houlden, James L, Ethics and the New Testament. London: Mowbrays , 

1979 . 


Hunter , Archibald M. Introducina . Philadelphia; 

Westminster, 1947. 
Hunzinger, Claus-Hunno, s,v, (ivKr, , TDNT VII: 751-757, 
Hut her , Johannus E . Kritisch exege t i sc]ie_s^_^^^^H^^^ 

des Jakobus . Meyer's Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht , 1865. 
Jeremias, Joachim. E^j!^..-T:.§^^SM¥}-!^.I^X^J.^^^9.A9.RY- ^^ - John Bowden. New 

York: Scribner, 1971. 

. s.v. =HA(e)iac;, TDNT II: 928-941. 

. " J ac . 4,5: epipo in ei. " ' ZN W 50(1959) : 137-138, 

, The Parables^ o^ J§,si?i§ • tr. S.H. Hooke . London: SCM, 

"^ 1972^ 

. "Paul and James."' ExT 66(1965): 368-371. 

Johnson, Luke T. "Friendship with the world /' Friendship with 

God: A Study of Discipleship in Jarnes , " Disclp.les_h4p In the 

N.§w Testament, ed. B'ernando F. Segouia. Philadelphia: 

E'ortress, 1985, 166-183. 

__ , ''The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James." JBL 

' 101 (3982) : 391-401 , 
Jones, Petei' R. "Approaches to the Study of the Book of James." 

REx 66(1960): 425-434. 
J u I i c h e r , Adolf. Fii n 1 e i J: u_n g^ j^ , Tubingen: 

Mohr , 1906. 
K a m 1 a h , E r h a r d . Di§_For.M.,,il-§Z.„,.M§;JL§J-ii9A§.P^^ 

,51§J5.5,§i5.,?Il5 ■ Tubingen: Mohr, 1964, 
Kennedy, Harry A. A. "The Hellenistic Atmosphere of the Epistle of 

James." Ex 82(1911): 37-5 2. 
Keck, Leander E. "The Poor among the Saints in the New Testa- 
ment , " ZNW 5 6(1965): 100-129. 
Kern, Friedrich H, ]!lf:J__'BTiet^^_J^^ Tiibingen: Fues , 1838. 
. "Der Charakter und Ursprung des Briefs; Jakobi . " TZTji 

(1835, 2 Heft): 3-132. 
K e u 1 e r s , J . pe.__Katho J. ie^^ . 

Roermand: Rofflen, 19 56. 
Kilpatr ick , George D , The Origin s of the Gospel Acc_. ,to,_st_^__Majt~ 

thew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946, 
Kirk, James A. "The Meaning of Wisdom in James: Examination of a 

Hypothesis." NTS 16(1969): 24-38. 
Kirn, Otto, "Noch einmal Jakobus 4,5." ThiSKr 77(1904): 593-604. 
Kistemaker , Simon. Xhe_Jo.giI§2^.,J:£-„QlA?^£®SJ^^^^ Grand Rapids: 

Baker, 1972. 
Kittel, Gerhard. "Der Brief des Jakobus," (review of Martin 

Dibelius, De r , Br i ej__ _d^^ ThLBl 44(1923): 3-7. 
. "Der geschichtliche Ort des Jakobusbr ief es , " ZNW 41 

( 1942) : 71-105 , 
____, "Der Jakobusbrief und die Apostolischen Vater." ZNW 43 

( 1950-51) : 54-112 . 
. "Die Stellung des Jakobus 2u Judentum und Heiden- 

christentum. " ZNW 30(1931): 154-156. 

. s.v Aeyw. .TDNT IV: 91-136. 

Kline, Leslie L. The Sayings of Jesus in the Pseudo-Clementine 

liO?3i4i.£S- Dissertation Series 14. Missoula, Scholars, 1975. 
Klostermann, Erich. Da^_Majtjthaus_-Ey^^ HNT , Tu.bingen: Mohr, 



Knowlirig, Richard J, The„,.E£Astle_ of _S_t^_^^^^^^^^^ London: Methven. 

Knox, Wilfred L. "The Epistle of St. James." JThS 46(1945): 10- 

17. " " ^ 

Kohler , Albert. GA§:Ek§,_yiLC„Wezi5s_l^ BJGZ. Zittau: 

Menzel , 1913 . 
Kohler, Kaufmann, s.v. "James, General Epistle of.'' Th§_ Jewish 

Enc ycJoEed Jjj^ ^ 1925 ed . 

Koster, Helmut, s.v. ciTfAayvov. TpNT VI: 548-559. 

. ,.Syn9.ELi§,£k§„,!J.bexl,i,®J.®^^^ 

TU 65, Berlin: Akademie, 1957. 
Kraft, Robert. T^hg„ Ap_o sjo l_i c_ _ F^^^^ . 

Vol, 3. New York: "Nelson, 1965. 

Ktibel, Robert. ,uk§J_._4,§S„V§j;ihal,tnJ.s^^^^^ Werken jDei 

Jakobus- Tiibingen: Tubingen Un . , 18 80. 
Kugelman, Richard. J§me£„§_nd__Judj^^ New Testament Message. Wil- 
mington, Delaware: Glazier, 1980. 
Kummel, Werner G. I_nt r oduc t i_o_n^^^^ tr. Howard 

Kee . Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. 
Kutsch, Eirnst . ''Der Eid der Essener." ThLZ 81(1956): 495-498. 

. "Eure Rede aber sei ja ja^ nein, nein." EvTh 20(1960); 

206-2 18 . 
Ladd , George E, i^„JJiU§o2o3Y__of_t^^ Grand Rapids: 

Eerdmans, 1974. 
Lane, William L. The__Go,spel__Accp_r^^^^^ NICNT. Grand 

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. 
Laws, Sophie S. A ComiBentary on t he EpLstle of James. Black's New 

Testament Commentaries. London: Black, 1980. 
_. "ij.i,(puxoc; : A Local Term?" SE 6:348-351, Berlin: Akade- 
mie, 19 73. 

. "The Doctrinal Basis for the Elthics of James." SE 7: 

299-306. Berlin: Akademie, 1982. 

. "'Does Scripture Speak in Vain? A Reconsideration of 

'' James IV. 5." NTS 20 ( 19'73-74 ) : 210-215. 
Layton, Bent ley. "The Sources, Date, and Transmission of Didache 

l,3b~2,l," HTR 61(1968): 343-383. 
Lechler, Gotthard, D§s_a£os t o,i_is cr£e__u^^^^^ 

Zeitalter . ^ Stuttgart : Besser , 1857 . 
Leconte, R. L es lp_i,t r e § C a/t h o 1 J_g_u e s . Paris: C e r f , 1961. 
Leon, Harry J. jE e__ J _e w s _o J:_ _ A n ^^ . Philadelphia: J"' e w i s h 

Publication Society, 1960. 
Lieberinan, Saul. Gr eek in Jewish Palest ine , New York: Jewish 

Theological Seminary, 1942. 
Lightfoot, Joseph B. The_Apostol_ic_X?i S'^ • J-R- Harmer . 

Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. 
Littmann, Enno. "Torrey's Buch tiber die vier Evangelien . '' ZNW 

34(1935): 20-34. 
Lohse, Eduard, ''Glaube und Werke : Zur Theologie des Jakobus- 
briefes." ZNW 48(1957): 1-21. 

. "Paranese und Kerygsna im 1 Petrusbrief . " ZNW 45(1954): 

68-87 , 
Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das__Ev_ange_lium^^^ Gdttingen: Vanden- 

hoeck, 1956. 

- 4 8 4 - 

Longenecker, Richard N. B i_bj._ij;^_l„ 1^^ Ap,9 .?. t,9.1A-9 

Perio_d. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1975. 
Luck , U 1 r i ch . .Ilie_VoJ,lJ:omjte^^ eiii 

§_kj uf^ll e s _ j£a^ TheoJx>jiia_d_e_3 M§S,iti§-Mi§. - M ii n c h e n : 

Kaiser, 1968. 
Maier, Gerhard. " Jesustradition im 1 Petrustax-'ief' ? " Go_spel Pei"- 

£E,§-?i.i ves . ed . David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT , 1965, 5:85- 
1 2 8 . 
M<s Iher be , Abraham . Socia_i_Asge£ts_^ _o^^^^ . Baton 

Rouge: LSU Press, 19 77. 
Manen, Willem C. van. ''Jacobus Geen Christen?" TjiT 31(1897): 398- 

42 7. 
Manson, Thomas W. "The Sayings of Jesus," in Major, H.D.A.; 

Mans on, T.W. and Wright, C,J. The^Mission^^^^^^ 

Jesu^. London: MacMillan, 1940. 

.. • Th,6 S_a Yi n2.§_„Pi._J,s.sus . London: SCM, 1964. 

Marshall, I. Howard. £onmen t a r Y,„,oii_La^ NIGTC . Grand Rapids: 

Eerdmans, 1977. 
Martin, Ralph P. James. Waco: Word, 1988. 
. "The Life-Setting of the Epistle of James in the Light 

of Jewish History.'' MJ?_iAS_§i.,Slfd_„N§ax-^_^^^^^ sd. 

G.A. Tuttle, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, 97-103, 
___ _, New Testament_F9iJB-<5:§^tj9n_§, Vos. 1-2. Grand Itapids : 

Eerdmans, 1978, 
Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New TestaiBent . tr , G. Bus- 

well. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968, 
Massibieau, L. "L'Epitre de Jacques est-elle 1 ' oeuvre d ' un 

Chretien?" RHR 32(1895): 249-283. 
Maynard-Reid , Pedrito U. Poverty and Wealth in James . iyiaryknoll: 

Orbis, 1987. 
Mayor, Joseph B, Th^„.3J22:MXJ::.§.,.^9.L,^^MS..: J;§I56S , London: MacMiilaJi, 

1892 , 
. 5ifi,§..._EpA§JLl®-„.^LS.Lt___,i.L§;.?51§-S • Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978 

reprint from the 1897 edition. 
M c N e i 1 e , Alan H . M.L-.Ill%.I-9.§}i£^A9Il ^t9_Jt he _S t, ud y_o f ^^^_J^^^ t a- 

ment . ed. C.S.C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953. 

. The_____Gosp_e l.„Ap_c..;_^..„t g ^ , ., S t _._Ma 1 1 hew . London: MacMillan, 

^""""l95 5.' '"~ 
Meier, John P. Law_ajid_Histo^^^ Rome: Bibli- 
cal Institute, 1976. 
Metzger, Bruce M. "The B'orraulas Introducing Quotations of Scrip- 
ture in the NT and the Mishnah." JBL 70(1951): 297-307. 
. "The Language of the New Testament." ILh?._ J.5J_63.^£I ©i e r J__s 


Michaels, J. Ramsey. "James -■- The Royal Law." in Barker, Glenn 
W, ; Lane, William L. ; and Michaels, J, Ramsey. The _.New 
T §,£.t5:iIL§i5i._-.SR,§.§&§ • Nsw York; Harper and Ftow , 19 69. 

Michel, Otto, s,v. toQ. TDNJ; III: 334-336. 

Michl, Johann, pi_e_k^athoiisc_h^^ Regensbiirger Neues Testa- 

ment. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. 

. "Der Sprue h Jakobusbrief 4,5." Nenit_e_s_ta..ment^^^^l^^^^^ 

satjse (fur J. Schmid). ed, J, Blinzler, 0. Kuss , F. MuBner. 
Regensburg: Pustet, 1963, 167-174. 

Mldrash Ra bbah. ed . H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. Vols 1-10. 
London: Soncino, 1939. 

Mielziner, Moses. Ilitroducti_on__t^^^ New York: Bloch, 

1968. '"~' " 

Minear , Paul S. "Yes or No, The Demand for Honesty in the Early 
Church." NovT. 13(1971): 1-13. 

Mitton, Charles L. The Epistle of James. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 
1966. ^^ '"" ' 

Moffatt, James A, An_ J n t r odu^^^^ i e r a t u r e __o ^^ 

T£s_5_amexit . Edinburgh : C larke , 1918. 

__, ;Lhe.._, Gjii§Z§: i_.lP,i§ tj,es . The Moffatt New Testament Co3i:i~- 

mentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928. 

. Th§_ Hi s t o r J. ca 1 _^^^^ Edinburgh: Clarke, 1901. 

Montefiore, Claude G. and Herbert Loewe , A, Rabbinic AnthoJ-ogy. 

London; MacMillan, 1938. 
Montefiore, C 1 aude G . .R§-]3J?,iX*l£.„-tiX§X,§:iBZ.§..,..5^^^^ T ®.§.,? hi ngs . 

London: MacMillan, 19 30. 

, The„_Sjfno£t_i_c^^^ London: MacMillan, 1927. 

Moore, George F . Jud§J_sm_Jj3__jUie_F^i^ o,L_.t !?•.§-. Qh r _i s t i an 

Era. Cambridge: Harvard Un, Press, 1962. 
Moule, Charles E'.D. The__Birth^j3j:^^_m London; 

Black , 1962 . 
. Ari__I_djpj3_Book__of^^^^^^ Cambridge : Un . 

Press, 1959 . 
Moulton, James H, "The Epistle of James and the Sayings of 

Jesus." Ex 7,4(1907): 45-55, 
__^___ . .|LJi£M!yB.§iL.12J._New_X®5,t§^^ Vols. 1-4. ed . Wil- 

bert Howard and Nigel Tiirner . Edinburgh: Clark, 1979. 
, "Synoptic Studies: The Beatitudes." Ex 7,2(1906): 96- 

M u i 1 e n ta u r g , James. The Literary Relations of the Epistle of 

..?. §J.B.§J?,,§-§.,.„§J3,.^ f A§..., T e .§£ h i_n g__oX_,th-§„ J£^^^^ • Marburg, 

Germany, 1929. 
MuBner, Franz. .Dex„.J.§.k.obusbr_i^.f. . Herders Theologischer Kommentar 

Zum Neuen Testament. B""reiburg: Herder, 1967. 
The__Naj3_Jlajn^m_a_di__ L^^^^ ed . James M. Robinson. San Francisco: 

Harper and Row, 1977. 
Nauck, Wolfgang. "Freude am Leiden." ZNW 46(1955): 68-80. 
. "Lex incuilpta in der Sektenschrif t . " Z_NW 46(1955): 

The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Committee of the 

Oxford Society of Historical Theology. Oxford: Clarendon, 


Nickelsburg, George W.E. "Riches, the Rich, and God's Judgment in 

1 Enoch 92-105 and, the Gospel according to Luke." NTS 

25 ( 1978-79) : 324-344. 
Nissen, Andreas. GojLJL_,iJIlS:.„^der_J^ Jm ant iken Ji.ifaen turn . 

Tlib i ngen : Mohr , 1974. 
Nosgen , Karl F. "Der Ursprung una die Entstehung des dritten 

Evangel iums, '■ .ThSKr, 53(1880): 49-140. 
Notscher, B'riedrich. "Gesetz der Freiheit im NT und in dei- 

Monchsgemeinde am Toten Meei"." Bib 34 (1953): 193-194. 
Oepke , Albrecht. s.v. aunp. TDNT I: 360-363. 
Oesterley, William , E] . "The Genex-al Epistle of Jaraes . " The 

Expositor's Greek_ Testament IV. Francker , Holland: Wever, 

i9ioT'"" '" 

TiL§._J5J;iL.X®_€iaiB„§£it_P.§.§JJ--4,gPA Vols 1-2. ed. James H, Charles- 
worth. New York: Doubleday, 19 83. 

QJ- d__T est amen t_J3uota^^ . Helps for Trans- 

lators, ed. Robert Bratcher. London: United Bible 
Societies, 1967. 

Orchard, J. Bernard. "The.ssalonians and the Synoptic Gospels." 
B i/b 19(1938): 19-42. 

Palmer, Christian, "Die Moral des Jacobus br ie fes , " JjrDTh 
10 ( 1865) : 1-36, 

Parrologia Graeca. ed , Jacques P. Migne. Vols, 1-162. Montrouge: 
Seu Petit , 185 7 . 

Patruin Apost53li^corum__^Ope_ra. ed , Osceir cle Gebhardt, Adolfus de 
Harnack, Theodorus Zahn. Lipsiae: Hinrichs, 1920. 

P a t r Y , R a o u 1 . iiI_i.PAtj;.§^., il.§L_.'ZscSJi,§^_il.i^ apport s avec la 
predication de Je.sais. diss. Paris. Alencon: Guy, 1899. 

Percy , ETTisrrTDT^^^^ . Lund : G leerup , 1953. 

Perdue, Leo G. "Paraenesis and the Epistle of James." ZNW 72 
{ 1981) : 241-256. 

Perrin, Norman. Tne_M.§M„T,§Ml^^^ ■ ^ ® '*"' '^" o - ^^- ■ 

Jovanovich, 1974. 
Pesch, Wilhelm. "Zur Exegese von Mt . 6, 19-21 und Lk . 12, 33-34," 

Bib 41(1960): 356-378. 
Pfleiderer, Otto. Da §_ U r cjixls t § n.t^^^^ lL§,h r §B 

II. Berlin: Riemer, 1862. 
Piper , John. h£LZg...^.l£}iI.^M.IlSE.i.^.§J J®JSsJ..,-_L2Z£_Comma^n^^^^^ 

,t ic G o s pej^ _ an d_iji___.^^ E_a r 1 y_ Q h r J_ s t J_an_____P a r a^^^ , Cam- 
bridge: Un, Press;, 1979. 
PiMM,l-,--.Ei;^bat i . Vols. 1-2. tr. William G. Braude. New Haven: 

Yale Un. Press, 1968. 
Plummer, Alfred. Gospel Ac cor ding to S. Matthew. London: Elliot 

Stock, 1909.""" 
Plumptre, Edward H. Sjt_j;__ J^m e_s . Cambridge: Un. Press, 1901. 
Pohill, John B. "The Life-Situation of the Book of James." REx 66 

( 1969) : 369-378. 
Popkes , Wiard . A_dr_essaj_en_,__S_i t^ , 

Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 125/126. Stuttgart: Katholisches 

Bibelwerk, 1986. 
P o s s , R i c h a r d H . The Articular and Anarthrous Construction in the 

Epistle of James . Unpub, diss. Southwestern Baptist 

Theological Sem., 1948, 

- 4 8 7 

Powell,. Cyril H. "'Faith' in James and its Bearing on the Problem 

of the Date of the Epistle." ExT 62(1950): 311-314. 
Przybyliski, Bejnno. Righteousness in M_atthew and hi_s Woi^ld of 

,'I.M.oii^il.llS • Cambridge: Un . Press, 1980. 
Fie i eke , Bo. The_ E;o,lstle^s_o E §jL§iLi.„_§-ll^-_. Jll!i§. • The Anchor 

Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964. 
Rendal 1 , Gerald H . The_Epist le _o^^^^ J.§.!Ees_.ajid_Juda_i^^^^ 

.i.,t_X • Cambridge: Un . Press, 192 7. 
F< e 11 d t o r f f , He i n r i c h . H.oiiei'_lin,d_Xat_e_r2^ 

JjiobJ^-st'iiff • Die urchristliche Botschaft, Hamburg: Furche, 

19 53. 
Rengstorf, Karl H. s.v. yeAdu . TDNT I: 658-662. 

_. s.v. kAoloj. TDNT III: 7 22-7 26. 

Resch, Alfred. A9X§£h§J_.,A!i§§r.9,§S^9J?is c_^^ . T U 

30.2. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906. 
. AuBercanonisc he Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien , Vols. 

1-3. TU 10. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1893-1896, 
. Per Paulinismus urid .di_e__Jjg£j._a Je_siL,Jr,Q_i!ir-g.B_£l®.S',§.0~ 

sfy :_t AS,§.Q_ Y_§I! h,§ 1 Jili,-§,_BIi,5.6^^^ • Leipzig: H 1 n d r i c h s , 1904. 
Eduard. Di_e,_Geschicht:e^^^ 

Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1853. 
Cyril C. "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles Com- 

the Didache." K%l2y,-^£lhF3^§.±A^R...E3.%M§'?3 - The 

London: SCM, 19 53, 

H. New Testament Life and 

Reuss , 


monly Called 

Library of Christian Classics 
Riddle, Donald W . and H u t s o n , Harold 

.k.i.t.f.IIli.ELl • Chicago: U n . Press, 1945. 
Riedel, Petrus A. rL?,_§££l^,l£.§.r,,,Ji§B. '?ii^,?^„.k?li®,f_.y«J^ - Jscofc".^® ver- 

,S..§.l,§.fe.§IL JB.§Jl,ji§-^,-Zede 1^ . diss. Un . G r o n i n g e n . 

Groningen: Schiertaeek, 1875. 
rii.enecker , Fritz . A^Jj^ing^i J^s t i c^_K^ I . 

ed . Cleon L. F^ogers Jr. Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1980, 
Riesenfeld, Harold. "'AIIAQL: ZU Jak. 1, 6." Con. Neot^_ 9(1944): 

3 3-41 . 
. T£ie_j3ospeJ,_Tx§illJ.A London : Mow- 
bray , 1961 . 
The Gospel Tradition: Essays. Philadelphia: Fortress, 


. "Vorn Schatzesammeln und Sorgen -- ein Thema urchristis- 

cher Paranese zu Mt. VI. 19-34.''' Neot®§JL?i2;§Ilt.4ii.§:,_®-t; 
P ^ti i§.t i_c a . Leiden: Brill, 1962, 47-58. 


ie_Li£ht .,£f_j^^^^^ 

"st'oughten, 1919. 

T . A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in 

New York: H o d e r and 

. .Studi es i n the Epistle of JaBiies. New York: Doran, 1915, 

Robinson, James M, and Koester, Helmut. Tj_ajec_tojri^,s_T_hjroug_h 

Early Christ iani ty. Philadelphia: Ifortress, 197i. 
Robinson, John A.T. R eda t^yi£_jt h e __N e_v^^ . London: SCM, 

1976, "" """ 

Ropes , James H 

__„„__„_ • Hie Spjriiche 

l?ILis.LL§_ J2-f -™§- .t.-_„i§J?l§,§ • ICC. Edinburgh: Clark, 


Rose, R. Vincent. "L'Epitre 
Chretien?" RB 5(1896): 

14. Leipzig: Hindrichs, i896. 
Saint Jacaues est-elle un ecrit 




Ross, Ale X a n ci e r . T h e_ E_pj._s O e s __ o _f jJ §jne_s__a n d_ jJ o hn . N I C N T . Grand 

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. 
Salmon, George, A_ H i s t o ri c a 1__ I n t r odi^ 2l,..„i,li.s 

Books of the_^Ne_w X6st_ament . Ijondon : Murray, 1886. 
Sanders , E . P . The^Tender)cy__of_ the__ Synopj: i c^^^^^T^^^^^ Cambridge : 

Un. Press, 1969. 
Sanders, Jack. Fihi?§„AQ.„^1?i}s._N.§51„^^^ Philadelphia: Por- 

tress, 19 75. 
S a n d m el, Samuel. A_Jew i^sh „,Unde r s t a^^^^ . 

London: SPCK, 1977. 
Sasse, Hermann, s.v. Koapoc;. TDNT III: 8 68-895. 
S c h e n k e 1 , Daniel, Pa^__C.hrJ._s_tusjDj. M 

l£2.§J;.o ii^c il.§.Q„2ei. t . Leipzig: B r o c kh au s , 1879. 
S c h i 1 1 e b e e c k X , Edward. J es.u s^ _ to . t r . 

Hubert Hoskins. New York: Vintage, 1981. 
Schlatter, Adolf von. De.L_ Brief Aes__J Stuttgart: Calwer , 


. Der Ey§Jige_lJ.st_Mat^^^^ Stuttga,rt: Calwer, 1963. 

_. pas Ejyanjjeliji^^^^^^ .P.y;.^as ■ Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960, 
Schmid , Christian F . Biblical_JI^.eologY_^^ 'tj^' • 

G.H. Venables. Edinburgh: Clark, 1877. 
. ,B i b 1 i s c_he _..Xfe§ oj. Ojgi e _ des N guen ._T e s.t ame ^^^^^^ II. Stutt- 

Schmidt, Karl L. :3.v. paaiAeia and /3aCTt/\ iKOC, . TpNT I: 574-593. 
Schmidt, Thomas E, Host_iJ.i._tY .t_o Wea_lth in the Synoptic Gp_^s£.e Is , 

£5hef field, JSOT , 1987. 
Schmidt, Woldemar G, Der Lehrgehalt des Jacobusbrief es . Leipzig: 

H i n r i c h s , 18 6 9 . 
Schraithals , Walter. Paulus_u.nd d acgbus . Gdttingen; Vandenhoeck 

u n d R u p r e c h t , 19 6 3. 
Schnackenburg , Rudolf , The_ Moral Teachincj of_th§....ji^M. Testament. 

tr. J. Ho 11 and- Smith and W.J. 0' Kara. London: Burns ?and 

Dates, 1965. 
Schneider, Johannes, s.v. hp^vk) . TDNT V: 176-18-5. 

. s.v. opKOC, . TpN'T V: 45 7--467. 

Schniewind , Jul ius . J?3s_E,y3B3^Xi.3}K^J£^3.9.h M3X%.PjM]^.§. • NTD . Got t ingen : 

Vandenhoeck una Ruprecht , 1968. 
Schoeps, Hans J. ''Exkurs I: Die Stellung des Jakobusbrief es , " 

Theologie und ^Ge.schichte d^^^^^ Tubingen : 

Mohr , 1949 . 
Scjdrage, Wolfgang. "Der Jakobusbrief." in Balz, Horst und 

Schrage, Wolfgang. Die katholischen Brief e. NTD. Gottingen: 

Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 19 73. 
Schrenk, Gottlob. .s.v. ypa4)h. TDNT I: 749-761. 

, . s.v. 6 LKUL oav V Y] . TDWf 1 1: 192-210. 

S c h w e g 1 e r , Albert, P.a s _ ji a c h ap ost_o^l i_ sc - 

?}9E§.Il^..§IL.3§AIX?-.I.JE.Il%Ei£EA]iI}.3. I- Tubingen: Molir , 1846, 
Schweizer, Eduard. Th^ JJlooji_News_A^^ tr . David 

Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975, 
Seesemann, Heinrich. s.v. neZpa, TDNT vi ; 29-30. 
Seitz, Oscar J.F. "Afterthoughts on the Term ' DIPSYCHOS ' . " NT§. * 

(1957-58): 327-334. 

. "James and the Law." SE 2:472-486. Berlin; Akademie, 

19 64. 


. "The Fielat ionship of the Shepherd of Hennas to the 

Epistle of James." JBL 63(1944): 131-140, 
Selwyn, Edward G. The_ Fi_rsJ:__E^^^ S_L,i.„P,ejter . London: MacMil- 

i sii I 194'/, 
Septuacjinta . ed. Alfred Rahlfs, Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wtirttem- 

bergiscne Bibelanstalt , 1952. 

Jlh:S^_S§£,ty^§J3ArLt,_Y.§Z§,ioi2j.,-„.^^G^^^^^^^ ^^ • Lancelot C . I, , 

Brenton. Grand Rapids: ;2ondervan, 1970. 

S e V e n s t e r , J an N . Do__,X9u_^n9w_ Greek ?^^ow .Qoul d_ the 

First Jewish Christ ian s Have Known? S N T . Leiden; Brill, 

Shepherd, Massey H. "The Epistle of James and the Gospel of Mat- 
thew." J>3L 75(1956): 40-51. 

Side Dot torn, E.M. JameSj Jude_and iXetsS- The Century Bible. 
London: Nelson, 1967. 

Sigal, Phillip. "The Halakhah of James." Intergerini Parietis 

Se_ptum_XE£h_v.--_2^^^ ,&,.i.§. 

s i xt y ~ f i ft h b i r^ t hd ay • e d . D i k r a n H a d, i d i a n . Pittsburgh: 

Pickwick. , 1981 . 
S me link, E;vert L. De„dJA§J_„Y,§Il_^^^^^^^ Nijkerk: Callenbach, 

1 3 o 3 , 
Smit Sibinga, Joost . "Ignatius and Matthew." NovT 8(1966): 263- 

Smits , C . Oud-TestajnentJ._i^^ . Col- 

1 e c t a n e a F r a n c i s c a n a N e e r 1 a. n d i c a . s ' H e r t o g e n b o s c h : 

Malffiberg, 1955. 
Snyder , Graydon F . The Apostolic B'ather s: The_Shephexd„_of,,_j^^ . 

Vol. 6. Camdon, Ne'w Jersey: Nelson, 1968. 
Soden, Hermann von. "Der Jacobusbr ief . " JrPrTh 10(1884): 137-192. 
^ . Hebraerbri_eJ_,_^_^^te^ J§koJ:iu§j__ Jud . HCNT . 

Leipzig: Mohr , 1899, 
Songer, Harold S. "The Literary Character of the Book of James." 

RE.X 66(1960) : 379-389. 
Soucek, Josef B. "Zu den Problemen des Jakobusbrief es . " .E_yTh 

18(1958) ; 460-468. 
Sparks, Hedley F.D. The For mat ion of the New Testament. New York: 

Philosophical Library, 1953, 
Spitta, Friedrich. "Der Buch des Jacobus." 2ur,,,_Gesc^^^^ 

Lit_^e_r^tuj jles_JJrcho^ II. Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck und 

Rup r e c h t , 1 89 6, 
Stahlin, Gustav , s.v. alTeu. TDNT I: 191-193. 

. s.v, opy n , TDNT V: 419-447. 

. "Zum Gebrauch von Beteuerungsf ormeln ira Neuen Testa- 
ment . " NovT 5(1962); 115-143. 
Stanley, David M. "Pauline Allusions to the Sayings of Jesus." 

_C BQ 23(1961) : 26-39, 
Steck, R. "Die Konfession des Jakobusbrief es . " ThZS 15(1898): 

Stendahl, Krister. Th ,§_ „ 3_<;Ao o J^_oX_S_t ^^^^^ 

PiC„I..?.§,t§5isn_t . Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, 1954. 
Stott, John R.W. Basic Introduction to the New Testamejit . Downer.s 

Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1970. 
S t owe r s , Stanley K . Thjg__P_iat^ri_be_ Mld_.„Pau lj_s __Jje t_t . 

Chico: Scholars, 1981, 


. .Lejti §.£^^,Wi.i,t i n g__ i n__Gr^^ . P ii i 1 a d e 1 p h i a ; 

We s 1 511 j. n s t e r , 19 8 6, 

S t r a c k , Hermann L . and B i 1 1 e r b e c k _, Paul. Komme n t a r_ z ;im 
Testament. Vols. 1-4. Miinchen: Beck. 1926. 

Strecke.r, Georg. "Die Antithesen der Bergpredigt (Mt, 5, 21-48 
par) . " ZNW 69 ( 1978 ) ; 3 6-72 . 

. The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Conynentarx , tr. 

O.C. Dean Jr. .Nashville: Abingdon, 1988, 

. Der_We2_ der _ Gere c^^^ 

d.§.§,,Jl§,i,.t,h_#-,E§ • Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht , 1971, 

Streeter , Burnett H. The_J'our__Gosg^^^ of C)rig_i^^ Lon- 

don: MacMillan, 1924. 

__. The___Prjjnitijve_ Stu_died_jv_itJi SpeciaJ^Jlef eren^^^ 

.?A§..,,..0,t.iiJAB.-§.-_, ojt„ili§...„i?..kti • The; Hewett Lectures 

1928. London: Maciviillan, 19 30. 
Tasker , Rudolph V,G. llhe ___G_e n e r a 1 _E p 1 snrj^^^ Tyndale New 

Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. 
. The Old Testament^ i^^^^ N_ew:,.l!e§tai?e?it • London: SCM, 

1946. " " ' ""' 

Taylor, Charles, "The Didache Compared with the Shepherd," JPn 18 

(1890): 29 7-325. 
Taylor ., Vincent , 12L*i.,Ji9Sl?i,..,-.§-£.9511flJiig_,..t^ London: Mac- 

Mi 1 Ian , 1 9 66 . 
Theile , Carl G . w . Coramentarius ^in_EjDistgJai5__J_a_c_o^^^^^^^^ Impensis 

Librariae Baumgaertheriae , 1833. 
32l«oJjDgij^j__M£t^^ Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel 

and Gerhard B''riedrich. tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vols. 1~ 

10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-1974. 
T h. i e s s e n He n r y C . I_nL?.Pi4\t?,1^Ji.911_„t-.o,^.,tll6„.Jl®w . Grand 

Rapids : Eerdmans , 1943 , 
Thyen, Hartwig. Der_ S t.i.l._._.der j lidi sc±i~he 1 1^ Honii 1 ie . 

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1955, 
Torrey, Charles C. Xilg.---J?i?^BX,..,§,9L§ES,l§- New York; Harper, 1933. 
Toxopeus , Hendrik J. Karakter^^.*?!} Herkomst __van_den_^^_ J^ 

disss, Amsterdam: Clausen, 1906. 
Tr'avis, Ax'thur E. "James and Paul, A Comparative Study." SWJlIli 

12(1960): 57-79, 
Treueti:, Christine. "Approaching Matthew from the Second Century: 

The Under-Used Ignatian Correspondence." JSNT 20(1984): 59- 

Turner r Nigel . Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edin- 
burgh: Clark, 1966. 
Usteri, Leonhard. "Glaiibe, "Werke, und Rechtf ertigung iin Jakobus- 

brief . " ThSKr 62(1889): 211-256. 
van der Horst (.see Horst). 
Verhey , Al len . The _^Gre,at_,_Rever_silJ_: EthXcs_,an_d^^__t^^ 

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. 
Vermes, Geza. T he Dead Sea Scrolls in English . Baltimore: 

Penguin, 1968, 
Via, Dan O. Jr. "The Right Strawy Epistle Reconsidered: A -Study 

in Biblical Ethics and Hermeneutic . " JR. 49(1969): 253-267, 
Vokes, F.E, "The Ten Commandments in the New Testament and in 

First Century Judaism," SjS 5:146-154. Berlin: Akademie, 


- 4 9 1 ■ 

von Soden (see Soden). 

Vos , Louis A , The SYnoptic^ Traditions j_n^^^ , diss . 

Vrlje Universiteit , Kamperi: Kofc, 1965. 

Vow inKe i , Ei-nst . PJe^Grmidgedanke i chen 

iBj:,S^„„d§lL..-_...§J:.§,i-e5: ki.i.§,leii^-„i§ s P§i0^s J«illiL-_._ Jojijxm^ . B F T h . 

Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1879. 
Wanke , Joachim. "Die urchrist lichen Lehrer nach dem Zeugnis des 

J a k o b u s b r i e f e s , " l}A.^^-.EAlSlIl§^^^.9:§.§^.A3.±3I}i§. • F e s t s c h rift f u r 

Heinz Schurmann. Leipzig-. St. Benno , 1977, 489-511. 
Warfield, Benjamin B. "^It Says': "'Scripture Says': ^God Says'," 

PRR 10(1899): 472-510. 
Weiss, D . B e r n h a r d . L § l^r tau cdi_, de .AO. _da s^^erae^T e_s t^^^^ 

ment . Ber 1 in : Hertz , 1897, 
WeissjBan, Moshe , The._.Mldrash^^^ Vols, 1-5. Brooklyn: Bene! 

Yakov, 1983 , 
W e i z s a c k e r , Carl. D§s^^.,^poilt 92, ische_Zei 

I£irciie. Freiburg: Mohr , 1886. 
Wenham, David. "Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three 

Samples." Go_s£e l_Pe_r spec t ^^^^^^ ed .David Wenham. Sheffield: 

J SOT, 1985, 5:7-38. 
Werner, Karl, "Ueber den Brief Jacobi , " Thy 54(1872); 246-279, 
Wessel , W , W . An _Ingu_iry^^^_i^^^^^^ 

±2KA.93A.-...3Ii§..M§AA9.l93.§^ §A£UlilA£3I}Sl§„.oii..-.-.Ah^ ..lEist le _of _JaiT)es . 

U npub , d i, s s . E d i nbu r g,h , 195 3. 
Westcott , Brooke F . A_GmieralS^^^^^ Hi§S9rY_„pX_the Canon 

9l^ihM^M§^....A§.§.A3MSI}:L- London: MacMillan, 1889. 
Wiefel, Wolfgang. "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the 

Origins of Roman Christianity." The Romans Debate . ed. Karl 

P. Donfrled. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977, 100-119. 
Wif strand, Albert. "Stylistic Problems in the Epistles of James 

and Peter." STn 1(1948): 170-182, 
Wijbelingn, h. De...,vraa£_j3f^_ Jacobus^^ 

]2.§JL?^Lf !:^o5,I!,,?!: • Groningen; van Wicheren, 1860. 
Wlkenhau.ser , Alfred . EJ.rjd § it un^_..Jn^^^^ Freiburg : 

Herder, 1956. 
Wilckens, Ulrich. s.v. ao^ca. TDNT VII: 524-525. 
Williams, Robert R. The_Le 1 1 e r s_£^^^ The Cambridge 

Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Un. Press, 1965. 
Windisch, Hans. Die_ katholischen Brief e. HNT . Tiibingen: Mohr, 

1930. "^'^ ~' 

Woh 1 enbe r g , Gust av . p. i e„ Leh re der_,._,lwoJ;,f _A£0 s t el .^_^i^^ 

nis^^ziiro, jieutest<amenj li chen Schr if turn. Erlangen: Deichert, 

Wright, L e o n . A, JJ: e r atj. o n s_^^ 

hil§.l§:A3I3...,-9l. t he Second Century. Harvard: Un , Press, 19527 

Yarnold, Edward J. "TeAeLOQ in St. Matthew's Gospel." SE 4:269- 

2 73. Berlin: Academie , 19 68. 
Young, Franklin W, '^The Relation of 1 Clement to the Epistle of 

James," JBL 67(1948): 339-345, 
Zahn, Theodor . EAB23AS3I}3.A.Pz.,.A%3,^M^3.g ^T^^stament 1, Leipzig: 

Deichert, 1906. ' ' ~ 

,. ivan_geJ._i_ijJ5_j3es__MaXth^^^^ KNT , Leipzig: Deichert, 1910, 

Geschichte des neutestament lichen Kanons . Er langen : 

Deichert, 181